4.6 Article

Frequency and predictors of a high clinical response in patients with psoriasis on biological therapy in daily practice: results from the prospective, multicenter BioCAPTURE cohort

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 176, 期 3, 页码 786-793

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.14888

关键词

-

资金

  1. University Medical Centre St Radboud Foundation
  2. Pfizer
  3. Janssen
  4. AbbVie

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background It is important to assess which patients with psoriasis are more likely to achieve high clinical responses on biologics. Objectives To assess the number of treatment episodes (TEs) that achieve a 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 100), PASI 90 or PASI <= 5 at week 24 of biological treatment, and which baseline patient characteristics predict treatment response. Methods Data from patients with psoriasis treated with adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab or ustekinumab were extracted from a prospective cohort. TEs with high clinical responses were described. Uni-and multivariate regression analyses were performed with the generalized estimating equation method to elucidate which baseline patient characteristics were predictors for PASI 90 and PASI <= 5 at week 24. Results In total, 454 TEs were extracted (159 adalimumab; 193 etanercept; 19 infliximab; 83 ustekinumab) from 326 patients. At week 24, in 3%, 15% and 59% of TEs, respectively, PASI 100, PASI 90 and PASI < 5 was reached. In TEs without a PASI 100 or PASI 90 response, PASI <= 5 was still achieved in 58% and 52%, respectively. Baseline PASI >= 10 was a strong predictor for achieving PASI 90; baseline PASI < 10 and a lower baseline body mass index (BMI) were significant predictors for PASI <= 5 at week 24. Conclusions A limited number of patients achieved PASI 100 or PASI 90 at 24 weeks of biological treatment. Including an absolute PASI score in the assessment of psoriasis severity is important. Baseline BMI was an important, modifiable predictor for a high response.

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

4.6
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