4.3 Article

Clinical improvement and satisfaction with biologic therapy in patients with severe plaque psoriasis: results of a European cross-sectional observational study

期刊

JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGICAL TREATMENT
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 193-198

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09546634.2012.697112

关键词

psoriasis; patient satisfaction; effectiveness; biological products; disease management

资金

  1. Adelphi Group Products
  2. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
  3. Pfizer Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Efficacy of biologic therapies for psoriasis has been demonstrated in randomized trials, but effectiveness in real-world settings has yet to be fully determined. Objective: To compare clinical improvement and treatment satisfaction with biologic versus other therapies in patients with plaque psoriasis. Methods: European dermatologists recruited psoriasis patients into an observational study. Dermatologists reported disease severity before and after starting current therapy; dermatologists and patients reported treatment satisfaction. Results: These analyses included 2151 patients: topicals, n = 453; phototherapy, n = 666; conventional systemics, n = 683; biologics, n = 349. The percentage with severe disease declined from 70% before to 15% after biologics, a significantly greater decline than other therapies: topicals, 22-10%; phototherapy, 20-11%; conventional systemics, 49-15% (all p <= 0.03). Significantly more patients (59%) receiving biologics were satisfied with treatment versus topicals (45%), phototherapy (34%), or conventional systemics (50%) (all p < 0.001). Significantly more dermatologists were satisfied with biologics (60%) versus topicals (35%), phototherapy (26%), or conventional systemics (42%) (all p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this study, more patients receiving biologic therapies improved from severe to moderate or mild psoriasis than patients on other treatments. More patients with plaque psoriasis and their dermatologists were satisfied with biologics than any other treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据