INTRODUCTION
Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory skin
condition characterized by thick plaques with silvery scale.1 These psoriatic plaques commonly occur
on the scalp, face, hands, feet, nails, genital regions and skin folds, and often cause pruritus and discomfort.
Due to the aesthetically unpleasant appearance of psoriatic plaques, patients often feel self-conscious about
their appearance, resulting in depression, anxiety, stress and decreased quality-of-life.2
Comorbidities of psoriasis, such as myocardial infarction, arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity, and
diabetes mellitus, can also negatively impact patient health.3 Furthermore, psoriasis is a
significant socioeconomic burden as it affects more than 3% of the United States (U.S.) population.1 Studies
evaluating the economic burden of psoriasis estimate the cost to be approximately $26,000 per patient per year
with a total cost of $35.2 billion in the U.S. per year, due to a combination of incremental medical costs,
reduced quality-of-life, and productivity losses.4,5 Additionally, treatment costs are increasing at
a higher rate than general inflation, especially with newer biologic agents compared to traditional
treatments.6,7As there is no cure for psoriasis, current treatments are aimed at suppressing the
cutaneous and systemic symptoms of psoriasis. The treatment modalities include topical medications
(corticosteroids, vitamin D analogues, and calcineurin inhibitors), phototherapies (Psoralen with Ultraviolet A
[PUVA] and narrowband ultraviolet B [NB-UVB]), systemic treatments (methotrexate and cyclosporine), and biologic
agents (targeting Tumor Necrosis Factor-α [TNF-α], Interleukin 12/23, or Interleukin 17A). However,
these treatment modalities are associated with significant side effects, including increased risks of skin
atrophy from long-term use of topical corticosteroids, risks of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) from
phototherapies, and immune-suppression from systemic treatments. Despite these side effects, phototherapy is
commonly performed for treatment of psoriasis due to proven efficacy, moderate cost, and minimal side effects
compared to treatments with systemic and biologic agents. A 2015 meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of PUVA
and UVB for treatment of psoriasis. This meta-analysis found 77% of PUVA and 61% of UVB studies achieved a 75%
or greater reduction in psoriasis area severity index (PASI).8 However, PUVA and UVB treatment
systems are often stationary and require a dedicated physical space, are costly to acquire and maintain, and
require patients to frequently visit dermatology offices for treatment (three sessions a week is a standard
phototherapy regimen). Thus, there exists a need for
