Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jan 1;161(1):31-38.
doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4129.

Psoriasis Risk With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Sheng-Yin To  1   2   3 , Cho-Hao Lee  4 , Yi-Hsien Chen  5 , Chia-Lu Hsu  2 , Hui-Wen Yang  1   2   3 , Ying-Shan Jiang  2 , Yuan-Liang Wen  1   2   3 , I-Wen Chen  3   6 , Li-Ting Kao  1   2   6
Affiliations

Psoriasis Risk With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Sheng-Yin To et al. JAMA Dermatol. .

Abstract

Importance: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are recognized as revolutionary cancer therapies but have raised concerns about immune-related adverse events, including the development of autoimmune diseases.

Objective: To evaluate the psoriasis risk associated with the use of ICIs in patients with cancer.

Design, setting, and participants: This nationwide cohort study with a target trial emulation design used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance database and the Taiwan Cancer Registry. The participants included were patients who received antineoplastic medications for cancer at stages III and IV between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2021. Data were analyzed from May 2023 to July 2024.

Exposures: Patients treated with ICIs were classified as ICI users, while those who received chemotherapy or targeted therapies were categorized as non-ICI users.

Main outcome and measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of psoriasis during the follow-up period. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to mitigate potential confounders. Cox and Fine-Gray hazard models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for psoriasis risk between groups.

Results: Of 135 230 patients who received antineoplastic medications (mean [SD] age, 62.94 [13.01] years; 45.1% female), 3188 patients were eligible for the ICI user group, while 132 042 patients were eligible for the non-ICI user group. ICI users experienced a higher incidence of psoriasis at 5.76 cases per 1000 person-years, compared to 1.44 cases in the non-ICI group. After adjusting for demographics and comorbidities, ICI users were found to have a 2-fold increase in the risk of developing psoriasis (IPTW-adjusted HR, 3.31; IPTW-adjusted subdistribution HR, 2.43). Both as-started design and on-treatment design showed consistent findings, and the results were consistent and robust across all follow-up intervals and all sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study, patients with cancer treated with ICIs faced an increased risk of psoriasis. Medical professionals should be aware of the potential adverse effects of immunotherapy to ensure optimal cancer care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Prof Kao reported research funding from IQVIA outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Cohort Flowchart
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Psoriasis-Free Survival Rates Among the Full Cohort
ICI indicates immune checkpoint inhibitor; mAb, monoclonal antibody; PKI, protein kinase inhibitor.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Association Between Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) and Psoriasis by Different Comparison Groups, Follow-Up Periods, and Subgroups
HR indicates hazard ratio; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting; SHR, subdistribution HR. aAge, sex, index year, monthly income, comorbidities, and outpatient visits were used for adjustments. bP < .001. cP < .01. dThe HR is calculated using the non-ICI users as the reference. eP < .05. fThe SHR is calculated by Fine-Gray proportional subdistribution hazard models, treating death as a competing event.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sharma P, Allison JP. Dissecting the mechanisms of immune checkpoint therapy. Nat Rev Immunol. 2020;20(2):75-76. doi: 10.1038/s41577-020-0275-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Singh S, Hassan D, Aldawsari HM, Molugulu N, Shukla R, Kesharwani P. Immune checkpoint inhibitors: a promising anticancer therapy. Drug Discov Today. 2020;25(1):223-229. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2019.11.003 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Haslam A, Prasad V. Estimation of the percentage of US patients with cancer who are eligible for and respond to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy drugs. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(5):e192535. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2535 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Khoja L, Day D, Wei-Wu Chen T, Siu LL, Hansen AR. Tumour- and class-specific patterns of immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(10):2377-2385. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx286 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Singh N, Hocking AM, Buckner JH. Immune-related adverse events after immune check point inhibitors: understanding the intersection with autoimmunity. Immunol Rev. 2023;318(1):81-88. doi: 10.1111/imr.13247 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Substances