Secretion,blood levels and cutaneous expression of TL1A in psoriasis patients

TL1A is a TNF‐like cytokine which has been shown to co‐stimulate TH1 and TH17 responses during chronic inflammation. The expression of this novel cytokine has been investigated in inflammatory disorders like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, but little is known about expression and induction in psoriasis. Indeed, the pathogenesis in psoriasis is still not fully understood and it is speculated that cytokines other than TNF‐α are important in subsets of patients. Also, for patients with severe disease that are treated with systemic anti‐TNF‐α blockade, novel candidates to be used as disease and response biomarkers are of high interest. Here, we demonstrate TL1A expression in biopsies from psoriatic lesions. Also, we investigated spontaneous and induced TL1A secretion from PBMCs and blood levels from a cohort of psoriasis patients. Here, increased spontaneous secretion from PBMCs was observed as compared to healthy controls and a small subset of patients had highly elevated TL1A in the blood. Interestingly, activation of PBMCs with various cytokines showed a decreased sensitivity for TL1A activation in psoriasis patients compared to healthy controls.TL1A levels in blood and biopsies could not be correlated with disease activity with this patient cohort. Thus, additional large‐scale studies are warranted to investigate TL1A as a biomarker.     

Prognostic tools for hypertrophic scar formation based on fundamental differences in systemic immunity

Unpredictable hypertrophic scarring (HS) occurs after approximately 35% of all surgical procedures and causes significant physical and psychological complaints. Parallel to the need to understanding the mechanisms underlying HS formation, a prognostic tool is needed. The objective was to determine whether (systemic) immunological differences exist between patients who develop HS and those who develop normotrophic scars (NS) and to assess whether those differences can be used to identify patients prone to developing HS. A prospective cohort study with NS and HS groups in which (a) cytokine release by peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and (b) the irritation threshold (IT) after an irritant (sodium lauryl sulphate) patch test was evaluated. Univariate regression analysis of PBMC cytokine secretion showed that low MCP‐1, IL‐8, IL‐18 and IL‐23 levels have a strong correlation with HS (P < .010‐0.004; AUC = 0.790‐0.883). Notably, combinations of two or three cytokines (TNF‐a, MCP‐1 and IL‐23; AUC: 0.942, Nagelkerke R²: 0.727) showed an improved AUC indicating a better correlation with HS than single cytokine analysis. These combination models produce good prognostic results over a broad probability range (sensitivity: 93.8%, specificity 86.7%, accuracy 90,25% between probability 0.3 and 0.7). Furthermore, the HS group had a lower IT than the NS group and an accuracy of 68%. In conclusion, very fundamental immunological differences exist between individuals who develop HS and those who do not, whereas the cytokine assay forms the basis of a predictive prognostic test for HS formation, the less invasive, easily performed irritant skin patch test is more accessible for daily practice.     

Evaluation of vilazodone for the treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders

Introduction: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and General Anxiety Disorder (GAD) significantly contribute to the global burden of disease. Vilazodone, a combined serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A partial agonist, is an approved therapy for the treatment of MDD and which has been further investigated for GAD.

Areas covered: This article covers the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of vilazodone and provides an evaluation of the clinical usefulness of vilazodone for the treatment of MDD and anxiety disorders. A literature search was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library.

Expert opinion: Studies have shown that vilazodone is significantly superior to placebo. However, vilazodone cannot as yet be recommended as a first-line treatment option for MDD as it is unclear whether the drug’s dual mechanism of action provides greater efficacy than prevailing treatment options. Moreover, more phase IV studies are needed to establish its efficacy and long-term safety in larger and more diverse populations. Although vilazodone may have an additional advantage for the treatment of anxiety symptoms in MDD, here also additional studies are required to confirm its efficacy over and above SSRI alternatives and other antidepressant treatments. Therefore, presently, vilazodone should be considered as a second- or third-line treatment option for MDD and GAD.