Chapter
Eight
"The Litany of Treatments"
2008
Postscript:
Gene therapy ... Biologics ... Fixatives and Snake Oil
Tar
It's been known
for eons that tar, applied directly to psoriasis
lesions, can be beneficial. How do you suppose that was
discovered? Did some medieval flaker fall into a tar pit
and emerge flake free?
“Sure, I stink
like hell, and next thing you know they're going to dip
me in feathers and run me out of the village — but geez!
Look ma! No flakes!”
“Coal tar” is, in
fact, the kind of tar from which psoriasis fighting
products are derived. Get this definition of coal tar,
quoted verbatim from the Random House Dictionary of
English Usage (Second Edition):
... a
thick, black, viscid liquid formed during the
distillation of coal, that upon further distillation
yields compounds, as benzene, antracene, and phenol,
from which are
derived a large number of dyes, drugs,
and other synthetic compounds, and that yields a final
residuum (coal'‑tar pitch'), which is used chiefly in
making pavements.
This leads me to
conclude the best possible career for psoriatics must be
road construction.
“You're getting
into your work a little too literally there, aren't you
Ed?”
“Maybe, but look
boss, no flakes!”
I've not hired a
single derm who could tell me precisely why coal
tar derivatives help psoriasis. Lord knows it's a sticky
business . . . and who would want to delve too deeply
into the research?
Coal tar
derivatives have been a part of my therapy since I
finally put my foot down and precluded liver petrifying
systemics (drugs taken internally). Most of the time I
use coal tar based products to combat my scalp
psoriasis. There's a concoction my pharmacist calls
“scalp cocktail” (somebody's idea of a bad joke) that I
glom into my hair before occluding my head in a taped
down shower cap at night. And yes, it does smell rather
like a fresh paved parking lot in Phoenix in July. (Not
a recommended therapy when impressing one's significant
other in the sack is important.) The shampoo I use daily
is black as pitch and smells like pavement, too.
What's irritating
is how expensive these products are. I buy this
obnoxious shampoo at K‑Mart™, of all places, and for
some reason the barcode is never programmed into their
cash register system.
“Do you remember
what the price was on this?” the young ladies always ask
me while turning over the itsy bitsy plastic bottle.
“Seven forty,” I
say.
“Oh my, that's
expensive shampoo!” they inevitably exclaim.
“And darn well
worth it!” I retort while winking. (I'm inclined to add:
“Look ma'am, no flakes!” but have resisted the impulse
so far.)
Some psoriatics
take “tar baths.” Hard to believe, isn't it? What for
centuries has been considered the lowest degradation (to
be “tarred and feathered and run out of town”) is for
some a necessary ablution.
I have no personal
experience with tar baths, but imagine one must approach
them with no ego and a strong sense of humor.
“Well, Ed, you've
been soaking for twenty minutes now. Time to get out and
take your shower.”
“What comes out of
the showerhead? Feathers?”
Occlusion
When I have work
to do in our nation's capital, I usually stay with
friends of mine in Arlington, Virginia. This childless
couple and I have been friends and business associates
for a long, long time, so they know all about my
psoriasis, but the first time I stayed with them during
a period of so called “occlusion therapy” was awkward.
Occlusion therapy
involves applying steroid goo to lesions then covering
them with plastic to seal out fresh air. This increases
the potency of the goo. My derm prescribed that I
occlude my scalp and my hands. That meant taping a
shower cap on my head and wearing “food handlers” gloves
to bed — taped to my wrists. I needed a bathroom mirror
to accomplish the outfitting, which means traipsing
through “public areas” on the way to bed in my friends'
home.
One night I was
simply too tired to wait for them to go to bed. I went
ahead and prepped myself then, knowing they'd see me on
my way from the bathroom to my bedroom, I just bit the
bullet and presented myself to them. They were startled
into speechlessness when I appeared before them in my
bathrobe, shower cap and gloves. I simply said, “There's
something you all need to know about my sexual
proclivities.”
Then, while they
were still giggling, I bade them goodnight.
Acupuncture
I was in San
Francisco, mixing business and pleasure, having dinner
with friends — a couple and their daughter. Somehow the
subject of my psoriasis came up.
“Have you tried
acupuncture?” the lady of the house asked.
I admitted that I
hadn't; never even thought about it, in fact.
“You must see our
Chinese doctor before you leave town.”
I've since learned
that Chinese and Western medicine are formidably
different and only now being seriously examined from a
“comparative” perspective. But at that moment in San
Francisco I knew nothing and was more than willing to
experiment. You need a bit of background.
It was November,
1994. I was coming off the biggest job of my year.
Nothing else of professional consequence was scheduled
to happen to me that year. My psoriasis was flaring. I
was less than two months into a volatile separation from
my second wife. (In retrospect, I'm just glad these
friends of mine hadn't recommended heroin. I was in the
mood to try anything.)
One thing led to
another and the next morning I met the Chinese doctor
whom I'll call here Dr. Chung.
“I understand from
our mutual friends that you have psoriasis?” That's
pretty much how Dr. Chung opened the conversation.
“That's right,” I
said. “Been having problems with it for four or five
years now.”
“All right. Let me
see the extent of its involvement.”
I blinked a couple
of times but finally figured out I was being asked to
strip, so I did.
“Oh my. Yes. We
have a problem here.”
Dr. Chung did a
lot of hmmm‑ing while surveying my torso. The
psoriatic lesions in the groin area were particularly
hmmm‑ful.
“Considerable
sexual activity lately?” Dr. Chung asked.
“Quite the
contrary,” I volunteered, wondering if I should tell him
about my wife's recent abandonment.
“Good,” Dr. Chung
offered. “Don't have sex and don't eat shrimp.”
Don't eat shrimp? Where the hell did
that
come from?
“Okey dokey,” I
said.
Dr. Chung
dutifully noted that my problems went beyond the
psoriasis. “Major pathways in your body are blocked,”
the doctor said, “and we must open them as first step.”
I didn't then and
don't now have the foggiest clue what a “major pathway”
is. But I knew I felt like hell, and that flaking was
only the surface of my problems (no pun intended). So I
allowed the doctor to proceed to open my major pathways
“as first step.”
This involved
sixteen needles, a maze of wires, and something that
looked to me like a 12‑volt car battery. Evidently,
“opening my major pathway” was going to require
electro‑shock therapy.
Once I had been
stabbed and wired appropriately, the good Doctor stepped
away from my gurney to hum Chinese tunes and write my
prescription for future treatment. I lay there lurching
every twenty seconds or so when the battery let loose
its volts into my needles hence into me. All the while I
listened to the good Doctor hum, wondering what
prescription could take so long to write.
I also tried to
sense whether or not my major pathway was unclogging. I
had this vision of an L.A. freeway in the twilight of a
diminishing rush hour....
The prescription —
written in Chinese characters — was for an herbal
concoction. The good doctor took ten minutes to explain
to me, step-by-step, how to prepare my “tea.” Problem
was, I live in Kentucky and the doctor's sources of
herbs were in San Francisco.
“If you pay,” the
doctor told me, “They will ship.”
I said “Sure.”
After all, I was sitting there on the gurney, nearly
buck naked, recently having had my major pathway cleared
of traffic by God knows how many doses of how many
volts, and I was expecting a cure.
A week or so
later, back at home in Lexington, the box of herbs
arrived. A box full of little sacks labeled “1,” “2,”
“3,” and so on. I referred to the notes Dr. Chung had
given me. Oh yeah. Boil water, add “1,” boil for so many
minutes, add “2,” boil for so many more minutes ...
eventually it read, “steep” for so many minutes on low
heat; then, take off heat altogether. Let cool. Drink at
room temperature. I did.... And then I vomited until
there was nothing more to throw up but pale yellow
strands of bile.
I'm sorry Dr.
Chung, but what looked like dried sliced mushrooms, bits
of honeycomb, dead flowers, insect parts and ground bone
meal did not do me well. I went back to my room, sat on
the edge of my bed, and scratched my calves until the
psoriasis flakes formed little piles on the carpet next
to my feet.
Oddly enough, I
kept the little bags labeled “1,” “2,” “3,” and so on in
my recently cleaned out by former wife cupboard
for many months. Finally, a new main squeeze happened to
open the cupboard one evening and said something
unprintable.
Basically what she
was getting at is that it didn't smell good.
I said, “Sorry,
that's my herbal medicine.”
She volunteered
that herbs were much tastier when consumed fresh — and
then told me what she thought I should do with the
not-so-fresh herbs I'd been sent from San Francisco.
Shortly
thereafter, I followed her advice.
Intralesion
Steroid Injections
After about two
years and several thousand dollars worth of potions and
unguents, the usual waxing and waning of those lesions'
activity, and some enlargement of lesions, my derm
finally decided to try direct intralesion injection of a
steroid. It worked almost overnight.
I thought I had
been cured.
I was so ecstatic
I wrote him a letter gushing with thanks. But I
refrained from asking why he waited so long to share
this miracle cure with me.
I was nearly
lesion free for six weeks; felt like running around town
in my skivvies and shouting, “Hey people! Look at the
beautiful skin on this hunka‑hunka‑hunka man!”
The lesions were
just beginning to redden again when it was time for my
next regularly scheduled visit to the derm. He thanked
me for my kind letter, expressed satisfaction with the
way I had responded to the injections.
Then I blew it.
“Doc, even my scalp stopped flaking!” (There had been no
injections into my scalp.)
Grinning stupidly,
unaware of what was going on in my derm's noggin, I went
on: “And remember, you didn't inject my wrists or hands,
either.” (He'd said there were too many blood vessels
and nerves close to the surface of the skin to “risk”
intralesion injections in these areas.) “But look, Doc!
They cleared, too!”
I was so happy I
could have kissed him — or, well, more likely the pretty
nurse who was attending to me with him.
Doc and the nurse
exchanged knowing glances. Finally, Doc said, “Well, I
guess we can't go doing that anymore.”
I was
flabbergasted. “Whatcha mean? It cleared me for six
weeks! I'd gladly do the needles again. What's wrong?”
Then he explained
to me that steroids can have very sinister side effects
if they spread beyond their intended area of the body.
My scalp and hands having cleared up suggested to him
that the steroid had spread throughout my body, or, as
he called it, systematized.
“But gosh, Doc,
I've had no side effects.”
He said he was
glad to hear that but, nonetheless, the risks were too
great.
I went home
depressed all over again. Great! Here's the one thing
that works and I'm being cut off already.
He refused to give
me any more intralesion injections for six months. By
that time I was flaring mightily. I had a business trip
planned for the east coast and wanted whatever necessary
to avoid meeting clients looking like a leper.
I went back to the
derm and almost got down on my knees to beg him for the
injections. He sat there, reviewing my file and finally
relented — a little. He instructed the nurse to limit
the injections to so many CC's. “That won't cover but
maybe one arm and one leg,” he said to me. “So I suggest
you pick your most egregious lesions and prioritize
them; then we'll hit as many as we can within the limits
of this dosage.”
Well, that was
better than nothing. I picked the big ones that were
flaking the worst and drove me the craziest with
itching. There were twenty, maybe thirty lesions that I
would have liked to hit, but the prescribed dosage
didn't get us half that far.
Intralesion
injections draw blood. Despite my limited dosage, after
fifteen minutes I was laying there in the examining room
bleeding profusely. Two nurses were dabbing at me with
cotton balls. “Hold this one there.... Hold that one
over here.... You better wait a few minutes before you
get dressed.”
I evoked my Steven
Segal voice and said, “Unless you give me more dope, I'm
going to run out into the receiving room and bleed all
over your waiting patients.”
For a moment they
thought I was serious.
I was sick for a
week as a result of the injections, which evidently did
systematize because all my psoriasis improved — not just
the lesions they hit.
When I say sick, I
mean throwing up in the mornings, shaking with fever in
the nights. This could have been psychosomatic, or it
could be my illness had nothing to do with the
intralesion injections. I don't really care. In my mind
I associated being sick with having the treatment and,
subsequently, it's never been repeated nor have I asked
for it.
It's back to the
potions and unguents for me. Back to the perpetual
waxing and waning. Back to an acceptance of the fact
that every day there will be visible lesions, likely
flakes, and unending itch.
Over-the-counter products
As you become
acquainted with psoriasis and learn to live with it you
will start paying attention to a gaggle of
non-prescription remedies — plant extracts, mineral
solutions, things you take orally, things you apply
topically, places to go on vacation, things to wear, and
so on (and on). And with each non-prescription remedy
there's a platoon or two of psoriatics who evangelize
the efficacy of the product.
We must have some
faith in truth-in-advertising, so we cannot thoroughly
discount the claims made by manufacturers and their
faithful clients. Why, then, do so many of us pay
outrageously for prescription products that sometimes
work and sometimes don't?
I've concluded the
answer is that psoriasis, probably like most other
diseases, is a compound condition, like an equation with
many variables. For me the equation might read:
a + b + c + d = Ed's Psoriasis
For another
psoriatic, the equation might read:
a + e + f + g = Ruth's Psoriasis
Yes, there is a
common denominator — a in these equations — and
that's what the research is going after and hasn't
completely discovered, yet.
Now follow my
thinking on this. Another factor of the compound is that
some of the variables are critical and others are not.
For example, I might find that adjusting my equation
like this would eradicate my psoriasis:
a
- b + c + d = No Psoriasis for Ed
In other words,
find a way to subtract b from the compound
and my psoriasis might acquiesce. The problem is what
is b?
But equally as
likely, I might rewrite the equation so it comes out
like this because the eliminated variable is
non-critical:
a +
b - c + d = Sorry Ed, Still Flaking!
C in this case
was a non-critical factor. I subtracted it but doing so
was not sufficient to make me stop flaking.
It gets even
more complicated (but not much more). There's
a temporal quality to the variables. Ed's b, c & d
are evidently critical at some times and
non-critical at others. So, it's not just isolating the
variable that poses the challenge, it's also isolating
the variable in time.
What's all this
have to do with over-the-counter remedies? I'm coming
to that, but first let me say two more things about the
equations (i.e., the compound nature of the disease
called psoriasis).
First, I believe
no psoriatic really knows how long their equation is.
Ed's real equation may contain variables a
through z. Ruth's equation may really be a
and f only. Our alphabet may not contain enough
letters to represent the possible variables in any
psoriatic’s specific compounded condition.
Furthermore, it's
difficult to determine which variables are critical and
which aren't, and this difficulty is again “compounded”
by the evident fact that variables are temporal, meaning
they take on more or less importance over time, or
perhaps seasonally.
Secondly, the
elusive common denominator, a, which is now
suspected to be a part of our genetic code which
“allows” psoriasis to happen, may or may not be
reparable. We simply don't know enough about it, yet.
(More on a in a moment.)
Okay. My theory.
Most (if not all) non-prescription remedies that cause
psoriasis lesions to acquiesce or go away entirely (I
mean vanish altogether for months or years at a time)
focus on one, or at most a few, possible variables,
which, if they are critical in your particular equation,
means the remedy is effective for some period of time.
(Remember, the variables are temporal, meaning they
change in importance over time.)
If my theory is
correct, it implies your experimentation with
over-the-counter psoriasis remedies is rather like
playing the lottery: Your chances of winning anything
are slight, and of maintaining the win for any
appreciable time slighter still. But that doesn't
mean you might not strike big! If you're Ruth, and
your psoriasis equation is very simple, a + f =
Ruth's Psoriasis, you might find an over-the-counter
remedy that knocks f out of the equation for a
good long while.
Let's say,
hypothetically, that Ruth's f is overly dry skin
compounded by the fact that she moved to the Western
Desert where there is virtually NO humidity. Yeah, she
has a in her genetic structure, but f is
her only trigger. Bag Balm™
may be the solution to her problem — for awhile.
The unfortunate
truth is that few psoriatics can isolate their critical
variables, even less isolate them for any appreciable
length of time. So the success or failure of the
non-prescription remedies is nothing more nor less than
an ongoing crapshoot. Maybe you win, maybe you don't.
Some of you (a slim minority of you) are likely to win
big and have the win last for a long, long time; but the
sheer complexity of the mathematics dictates that for
most of us, going the over-the-counter route is
comparable to moving through the “stages” of the
Publisher's Clearing House® sweepstakes. That doesn't
mean we don't enter the sweepstakes.
So what's
different about prescription remedies? As you might
guess, I have a theory about that, too. Drugs are
prescribed because there are risk factors involved
in their use. In the case of psoriasis prescription
remedies — both topical and systemic — there is a
spectrum of risk that rainbows from minor (the mild
topical corticosteroids and tar-based emollients) to
major (the strong systemics). When you look at Ed's
equation as it's affected by a prescribed treatment
regimen, the goal is this:
a + b + c + d
≠
Ed's Psoriasis
Note the “does not
equal” indicated by the equals sign “=” over which is
printed the slash “/”. Since we have no cure for
psoriasis today, all prescribed anti-psoriasis drugs are
directed towards thwarting our psoriasis symptoms.
(Prescribed regimens, on the other hand, often
involve variables on the left side of the equation, for
example “no alcohol,” “less red meat,” “more ultraviolet
light exposure,” etc.)
My understanding
of most prescribed psoriasis medications leads me to
conclude they simply work on drawing that slash through
the equal sign. That's why they're not a cure and why
they're dangerous. I mean, think about it: If my nature
says that a + b + c + d is supposed to equal (=)
flaking, and something is introduced to that natural
order to stop that equation from working, there
must be a price to pay (and I'm not talking
merely about the high cost of the drugs).
Any derm or
pharmacist worth his title will tell you that
prescription remedies for psoriasis are not cures and
they come with potential price tags beyond what you pay
in cash. The irony (and the intuitive proof of my
theories) lies in the statistics of the success of these
drug regimens. Typically, only
80% of the cases are positively treated for any
appreciable time through any existing drug
regimen. Conversely, that means you have an 80% chance
of responding positively to some prescriptions for
some undetermined length of time. Why do you think
we keep going back to the derms to try new things? I
told you, the disease is resilient.
I believe the
strength of the equal sign in our individual
equation depends on what's to its left in the
expression. The number of variables, their
criticality, and their temporality all affect
the resiliency of that equals (=) sign. Consider
it like this: the more variables you stack up on the
left side of the equation, the tougher the “equals” (=)
sign becomes, and the “tougher” the slash must be to
penetrate it. Ruth's a + f = Psoriasis made for a
pretty penetrable equals (=) sign in her equation. As a
matter of fact, Ruth didn't even have to run a slash
through her equals sign because in this mathematical
metaphor a slash indicates a prescribed drug. Bag
Balm™, an over-the-counter goo originally developed as
relief for livestock whose udders were dry and cracking,
proved to be the trick for Ruth. It eliminated her one
critical variable at that moment, which was overly dry
skin.
On the other hand,
Ed's a ... z = Psoriasis is a helluvalot more
complicated. For Ed, Bag Balm™ may work for awhile, but
not likely for long. Folks, we're talking about
potentially complex equations here. If they were simple,
we'd have found either (a) a cure, or (b) a sure-fire
way to put a slash through every psoriatic's “equals
sign” by now.
Fact of the matter
is, the equations are so complex, so apparently
individual, that the most effective road to managing the
disease called psoriasis (at least at this time) is
poking at the equals (=) sign with increasingly
dangerous frenzy until you find a slash mark that can
really penetrate the equals sign. And that's what our
existing prescription approaches attempt to do. They do
so at increasingly significant risk, depending on the
strength, or impenetrability, of your specific equals
(=) sign and the concomitant strength required of the
slash mark that goes through it.
Ed's psoriasis may
be engendered by the fact that (a) he has the
proclivity (most certainly), (b) he's allergic to
his climate, (c) he's in midlife crisis, and we
could go on with (d) through (z). Consider
the left hand side of this equation an on-ramp to the
highway called FLAKING. The more the variables, the
longer the on-ramp, the greater the acceleration, then,
BANG! Ed comes to the “equals” (=) sign — the point at
which he enters the highway and starts to flake. To
prevent Ed's psoriasis from passing beyond this point
(that is, manifesting) the severity of the remedy must
be equal to or greater than his accumulated acceleration
at that point.
True, it would be
nice if Ed could just pull a spark plug, kill the car
and coast to a stop at this point, but that's beyond the
range of our current technology; it is, in effect, what
we're trying to do with dietary approaches and genetic
research.
The dietary
approaches to psoriasis resound from the truism that
we are what we eat. Hence, something we’re eating
is either causing psoriasis; or something we should be
eating will prevent it. Why it just happens to us and
not everyone who eats like us is what makes the
difference between a slash mark through the equals sign
and a true cure. No matter. If you can obtain a
psoriasis free life by following a diet, you probably
don’t give a damn what it’s called — “cure” or something
else.
The genetic
research is aimed at defeating the a variable,
the “common denominator” it's presumed all psoriatics
share. In this context you can think of the a
variable as “the number one spark plug.”
The
over-the-counter remedies treat “spark plugs” as a
single variable or combinations of variables on
the left hand side of the equation, and “pulling of the
spark plug” — if it happens — is the desired consequence
of trying the right remedy at the right time. Ruth's Bag Balm™
defeats her dry skin problem, which just happens to be
her one and only psoriasis trigger at this particular
time, and in her particular place. Lucky Ruth.
Prescription
regimens are much more drastic. They are the equivalent
of planting a stop sign at the top of the on-ramp. Think
about it. Here you are, going gangbusters to build up
steam and get on this highway called FLAKING — because,
whether you like it or not (and invariably you do not)
that happens to be where you're headed — and suddenly
you have to screech on the brakes and stop the car at
the top of the on-ramp. The brakes grind, the tires
squeal, the baby crashes through the front windshield.
These are the metaphorical equivalents of what can
happen to you on prescription regimens, which is why
trained professionals — derms — are entrusted to guide
you.
Derms will analyze
your lifestyle and prescribe regimens that both “try to
find the right spark plug to pull” and throw up a
stop sign at the top of the on-ramp. That is, they'll
dabble at exploring lifestyle problems with you (“Are
you stressed?”) and recommend non-prescription
solutions (“Cut down on your alcohol consumption.”)
while they'll simultaneously try to drive a slash mark
through your equation's equals (=) sign with a
prescription regimen.
But derms don't
want to risk a crash and burn accident at the top
of the on-ramp, brought on by some adverse reaction to a
prescription (i.e., the wrong stop sign in the wrong
place and the wrong time). Because they're so totally
ignorant of your specific psoriasis equation
they're mostly stabbing at the dark when it comes to
changing plus (+) variables to minus (-) variables on
the left side of your specific equation. In other words,
they don't know how long your on-ramp is or from what
it's made (aside from one thought-to-exist common
denominator: the a variable).
Since psoriasis is
so common (approximately four to five million Americans
are believed to be psoriatic), there is every reason to
think what I call the a variable exists and is
genetic. This is the focus of some of the most recent
research. No current over-the-counter solution addresses
the a variable. Nor does any prescription
medication, topical or systemic.
We know so little
about our genetic code that it may be decades before we
invent countermeasures, and the countermeasures we
finally come up with may be so-called gene therapy
that can be applied to us as adults, or it may be some
in utero process, meaning we may learn to prevent
the disease in future generations but maybe not cure it
in our own. What we hope to discover is that the a
variable is indeed a common and necessary
denominator, a factor that is fundamental to manifesting
the disease. If this proves true, and a can be
avoided, modified, eliminated, or divested of its
powers, all the other variables — whether we're Ruth's
simple equation of two variables, or Ed's complex
equation of a ... z — will become irrelevant
because without a psoriasis doesn't happen.
That's a simplistic cause for rejoicing, because even
without the a variable the equation may still exist,
which means it might add up to something else. (What
if subtracting a from our equations meant the flaking
stopped but we lost our sense of taste? Or we became
impotent?) Whatever the equation adds up to without a
may be nothing, or may be something harmless, or it may be
our next challenge. Nature shrugs and throws the dice.
That's the way it goes.
●●●●●
Ed’s Postscript (3/19/2008-4/20/2008):
This chapter is the reason I pulled
Flake: Confessions of a Psoriatic off the
market in 2005. All of this was written before I had
tried any systemic medicine and, more importantly,
before the advent of biologics.
Since then I’ve tried many of these.
Gene Therapy for Psoriasis
The promise of gene therapy for psoriasis was
really heating up about the time this book was written. In
this chapter I referred to this as
“the a variable.”
There had been some success in treating
disease with gene therapy and we felt about as euphoric as
we did after man’s first footsteps on the moon. Anything
was possible. Then, in 1998, an eighteen year old named
Jesse Gelsinger died three days after receiving his gene
therapy trial treatment. The National Institutes of Health
ordered a ban on the particular kind of genetic treatment
Gelsinger had not survived. The one year ban was followed
by a Federal investigation that lasted until 2001. This was
another one of those highly publicized “bubble burstings”
that, in retrospect, appear to define the decade of the
1990s.
Where is gene therapy for psoriasis going today?
Anywhere? I really don’t know.
At the National Psoriasis Foundation annual meeting in
2002, a geneticist made a PowerPoint™ presentation that was
about 15 acronyms beyond what the lay member in the audience
could absorb (that means me) and that’s about the last thing
I’ve heard regarding gene therapy research for psoriasis. In
my late 2006 interview with then-head of research at the
National Psoriasis Foundation,
Liz Horn, I asked
her directly about gene therapy research and she responded:
Horn:
Gene therapy remains a
possibility for psoriasis therapy. We just need to
understand the genes that cause psoriasis. There are many
talented scientists trying to answer this question...
I think the “question” Horn meant that was
being worked on by many talented scientists was “what are
the genes that cause psoriasis?” —
not gene therapy. You see, in the mid
1990s when I wrote “the a variable,” I and, I
suppose, others were naïve enough to think there was a
gene that caused psoriasis. By 2002 we knew better. It
appeared to be several genes that were “involved” in
psoriasis. It seems like the more they looked, the more
they found.
The discovery of each new gene associated
with psoriasis catapults a possible gene therapy for
psoriasis further into the future. The research becomes
staggeringly complex because we are no longer talking about
turning one thing off. Now we are talking about a chain of
things. And in biology, wherever there is a chain of actions
the possibility of a branching set of consequences also
exists. Any one of those genes may contribute to psoriasis
and
contribute to other things that we do not want to
willy-nilly stop.
For the time being, what happened to Jesse Gelsinger,
coupled with growing complexity in the case of psoriasis,
makes the aspect of a gene therapy cure for psoriasis far
away.
Biologics
Virtually all of the most successful biologics for
psoriasis began as biologics for other immune system
ailments (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis and Crohns). Enbrel,
the first biologic approved for the treatment of plaque
psoriasis in the U.S., had been used for rheumatoid
arthritis for several years during which the added benefit
of clearing psoriasis was thoroughly studied and verified
through directed trials.
The advent of Enbrel, followed quickly by Amevive,
Raptiva, Humira, Remicade and others in the pipeline or
being prescribed “off label,” took over the excitement we
were losing as the realities of gene therapy sunk in. I was
one of those few thousands of people who jumped quickly onto
the Enbrel bandwagon only to find the manufacturer
ill-prepared to deliver. We were wait-listed for over a
year (some of us) while new manufacturing facilities were
readied. Then, in my case, this particular biologic didn’t
work.
In retrospect, I understand my flirtation
with Enbrel was mismanaged. I started at a dosage that was
too low to overcome a rebound from cyclosporine and it
wasn’t until four months into my use of Enbrel that my
doctors approved me for twice the initially recommended
dosage. During that time — between starting on Enbrel and
being allowed to increase the dosage — I was diagnosed with
testicular cancer, went through surgery and radiation
therapy, and had to “suspend” my use of Enbrel altogether
for two periods of several weeks each. By the six-month
mark on the Enbrel, I was flaring badly and ended up
returning to one of the oral systemics and giving up the
Enbrel. Despite all this I have returned Enbrel to my list
of potential future
therapies. It deserves another try, under less stressed
circumstances, primarily because it is one of only two
subcutaneously injected biologics currently showing equally
good results for skin psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.
(The other SQ-administered biologic that seems to help both
forms of psoriasis is Humira, which I am currently using
with excellent results.)
These new brightly lit drugs for psoriasis are
outrageously expensive. The “medicine” consists of long
protein molecules naturally
produced by living tissue (under stringent laboratory
conditions, of course). The reason biologics can’t be
delivered as a pill or capsule is that the process of
digestion would break down the molecules that need to stay
whole to work. Therefore, the current crop of biologics for
psoriasis are either infused or injected. This means the
medicine either comes with the paraphernalia necessary to
administer it, or one must obtain an infusion under medical
supervision. While this adds to the expense, I rather doubt
it adds that much. The biologics are simply more difficult
to manufacture, package and transport than pills, and
enormous investments in research, development, and studies
towards FDA approval all contribute to the high cost, which
typically runs between $1,000 and $2,000 per month.
I hope we are in a period where the newness of biologics
for psoriasis buoys their high prices. For the time being,
the manufacturers are not threatened by deadlines on their
exclusivity agreements with the FDA — but that, I read, is
being challenged in Congress, now. As the number of
biologics grows, competition will exert some pressure;
however, perhaps not as much as we would think. Most of the
bouncing from biologic to biologic that I and other
well-insured flakers have tried has been motivated by drug
performance, not price. Enbrel didn’t work for me ...
Raptiva worked splendidly on my skin but had no effect on my
psoriatic arthritic joints ... I tested “inappropriate” for
Amevive ... and now I’m very happily using Humira with no
intent to switch again until symptoms return. Every now and
then I hear that the psoriasis biologics are in a “shake
out” period. That implies some will rise to the top of the
heap because they are better drugs, others will fall out of
favor because they don’t perform well. Frankly, I don’t
think the case for or against any drug can be reduced to
market forces. Our various equations that add up to P —
being so diverse and changeable over time and environmental
circumstances — are more of a factor, I believe, than sales
statistics and marketing strategies. What we are seeing in
the postings at PsorChat and other P-boards, blogs and so
forth, is the mantra “different strokes for different folks”
applying to the biologics as well as all other types of
P-drugs and treatments.
I remember attending the
Raptiva road show
in October 2004, and hearing the keynote derm repeat, with
emphasis, the life-time nature of biologic treatment for
psoriasis. I was already a lifetime user of insulin, so the
thought of another routinely self-administered shot seemed a
simple price to pay for living flake-free. The “life-time”
efficacy of a single biologic therapy does not appear, in
practice, to be so assured. Like virtually all P-therapies,
on-going efficacy appears to be subject to the same
individual “formula” that includes time and environment. My
inbox at FlakeHQ is receiving an increasing number of emails
from people reporting their biologic has stopped working.
I’m no economist, but it seems to me a fluctuating
population of users for any particular biologic may work
counter to our hoped-for price decreases. I don’t believe
any of the biologics have received the prescription levels
for psoriasis they had targeted. (Some have fallen far
shorter than others.) There are lots of reasons for this, of
course, but cost is certainly a factor. This means, to me at
least, that holding one’s breath for lower prices is not a
good idea.
Interestingly, the uninsured and underinsured
who are left outside the range of biologic therapies have
managed to revitalize interest in alternative therapies for
treating psoriasis. This has been a very perceptible trend
at FlakeHQ.com. Diets, dietary supplements, acupuncture and
acupressure, Ayruvedic medicine, chiropractics,
climatotherapy — all of these alternatives dwell constantly
along the sidelines of psoriasis discussion and it should
come as no surprise that when traditional western medicine
“exceeds our grasp” — or when it fails — what was
fringe may take
center stage. There is a persistent disdain for this fringe
group, partly well founded, but not entirely.
I believe in my theory that psoriasis is the
end result of a biological/temporal/environmental equation
that individualizes in all of us who flake (most of this
chapter in its original form was intended to defend this
point of view). To the extent that there are specific
biological actions, attributes, or conditions that are
common, therapies and products that focus on those
commonalities may help large numbers of us. Nothing has
proved to help all of us! None of those alternatives I
listed in the preceding paragraph should be dismissed if you
hold my point of view. They may be difficult to test and
hence defend, they may influence flaking roundaboutly, and
like everything else, they are not likely to work for
everyone. But I regularly hear from people who
are helped by these alternatives. Often
the correspondence progresses like this. “I am going to try
___. Wish me luck!” “...so far, nothing...” “I’m seeing
improvement!” “Still improving (or) staying improved.” “It
stopped working....” But I receive that same
progression of email from folks who
try biologics, other systemics, and virtually every
prescription topical.
All this makes me sound extraordinarily tolerant of the
pharmacological circus and its side shows. I do think that
tolerance is indicated in the treatment of psoriasis, but I
do not go entirely without rages. While it may be
difficult, possessing my point of view, to point to any
concoction offered as a fixative for psoriasis and call it
“snake oil,” it is not impossible if you set limits on what
is or isn’t acceptable presentation.
Psoriasis Fixatives and Snake Oil
Anything today pitched as a “cure for
psoriasis” is being unacceptably presented. There are
“effective treatments” that “control symptoms” but they are
not cures. Sometimes I think the authors of “cure” claims
are simply misusing the word. It’s almost funny to come
across a headline with the word “cure” then find, further
down in the narrative, a statement like “80% of those who
try this see improvement in their psoriasis.” I have, in
the past been told it’s me
that’s misusing the word “cure.” One correspondent pointed
out that not long ago people said they were going somewhere
to “take the cure” for this, that, or the other and everyone
understood this did NOT imply a one-time-only visit. I
shrug. When I read an ad for a “psoriasis cure” I flinch
because I know it’s going to be relatively expensive and it
may or may NOT help me, and
even if it DOES help me, it
almost certainly won’t help me FOREVER.
If, on the other hand, I read an ad that says “effective at
reducing or eliminating psoriasis lesions...” my blood
doesn’t boil and my mind doesn’t rage.
Any product marketing that denigrates
alternatives is unacceptably presented. One of the reasons
why I like John O.A. Pagano
(chiropractor and author of
Healing Psoriasis: The Natural Alternative)
is that, while he doesn’t like some of the systemic
medicines used to treat psoriasis, he does not proselytize
against them. He wrote to me, “If I had the problem
[psoriasis] I would do all I could to find answers (within
reason). If some procedure were presented to me that
sounded promising, I would go for it. I would soon know,
however, if it is right for me. If it is, I'd stick to it —
if not, I'd move on!” Every moderate to severe psoriatic who
has assumed responsibility for his own treatments
understands completely Dr. Pagano’s sentiment in that
quotation — whether or not they agree with his dietary
approach to “healing psoriasis.”
Any product marketing that does not include the names of
the active ingredient(s) is unacceptably presented. There
are so few active ingredients allowed and/or known to
improve psoriasis that snake oil advertisers have difficulty
with this. Many will mention the ingredient (especially if
it is commonly known to work; e.g., zinc) but then suggest
their version of it works better than all the others because
of additional “secret” ingredients. If telling me what
those additional ingredients are is giving away the store,
there should be no store, no product, no promotion. I should
also say, there should be “no booklet.”
Over the past dozen years I’ve come across
two or three examples of snake oil salespeople trying to
beat objections by selling “recipes” instead of “product.”
They do it through booklets for which you may pay between $10 and
$30. It’s so transparent! You can almost see their
greedy little minds gyrating.... “Hmmm. If I package this
all up and sell it as a product I don’t dare list the
ingredients because everyone will recognize it as being
readily available elsewhere/already/in raw form....” “Okay,
I’ll write a booklet. Tell them how to make it
themselves....” Then, of course, the ingredients
list becomes
something you pay for in and of itself. Wow. The amazing
thing is this hypester is likely to make several thousand
dollars before word gets out. (One person of this ilk turned
down my offer to review his booklet when I said I would
neither purchase a copy nor sign an agreement not to
disclose his “secrets.” He may have beat ol’Ed Dewke at
FlakeHQ, but his “secrets” were learned and released by
other third parties, thereby saving perhaps thousands of
flakers from
throwing away their money.)
The last and most
difficult kind of cure/remedy/palliative product sales is
that which comes from the truly heartfelt but poorly
informed. Over a decade ago, I heard from a gentleman,
at the time in his sixties, who had spent many years in
prison. While he was incarcerated his wife developed
and suffered terribly from psoriasis. He made it his
occupation, while in prison, to develop a cure for his wife.
He read what he could get his hands on and learned enough to
know petroleum jelly was a good emollient and there ought to
be something you can add to it that would complete the
healing of psoriasis lesions. He claimed he worked for
many years on his "jelly," at first giving instructions to
his wife when she visited as to what to add and how to make
the next batch. Their experimentation continued when
he was paroled and finally he hit upon a combination that
worked. He claimed his concoction made the lesions
disappear for quite a while. And, if used when the
first signs of them returned, it would quickly thwart them
again. He begged my permission to send me a sample jar
to try for myself. I gave my permission, received his
jar quickly and
— it still surprises me to reflect upon
this — I used it as directed until the jar was almost gone
and I realized it had done nothing except keep me from using
other things that did work.
My trial with his
product resulted in the same worsening of my lesions I would
have expected if I just stopped treating them altogether.
Ironically, on or close to the same day I tossed the
homemade remedy and resumed my use of prescribed topical
corticosteroids, I received an email from my anxious
entrepreneur. He wondered how I was doing and if I
planned to write positive things about his "jelly."
Rather than letting my rage abate overnight, I fired back at
him full blast then immediately regretted it. But what
really left me aghast was his response to my angry email.
He wrote back that he was sorry I had not improved but he
rather suspected I wouldn't because, in making the batch
from which he extracted my sample, he had forgotten a key
ingredient. Would I mind trying another jar that he
was sure would have all the proper ingredients?
Sigh.
●
Contents of
Flake: Confessions... |