4.6 Article

Drug survival is not significantly different between biologics in patients with psoriasis vulgaris: a single-centre database analysis

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 171, 期 4, 页码 875-883

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.13001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundDrug survival depends on several factors such as dosing, effectiveness, quality-of-life improvement and safety, and could be seen as an overall marker for treatment success. Such data for biologics in psoriasis treatment are sparse. ObjectivesTo determine differences in drug survival between different biologics for psoriasis. MethodsDrug survival, dosing, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Skindex-29 at weeks 12 and 52, and adverse events of patients with psoriasis treated with a biologic registered in the local database of the Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, were analysed. Patients were divided into those naive or non-naive for treatment episodes with biologics. ResultsDrug survival did not differ significantly for naive treatment episodes between the biologics (etanercept 85% to 64%, adalimumab 77% to 77%, infliximab 75% to 75% for year 1-4), or for non-naive treatment episodes (etanercept 86% to 42%, adalimumab 84% to 56%, infliximab 68% to 43% for year 1-4; ustekinumab 84% to 57% for year 1-3). The naive group showed better drug survival and PASI 75 response at week 12, although the difference was not significant. A similar improvement of mean PASI and mean Skindex-29 was observed at weeks 12 and 52 for all biologics for both groups, although no significant difference was seen between groups. Treatment termination was due mainly to nonresponse for all biologics. ConclusionsThere was no significant difference in drug survival, mean PASI or Skindex-29 response at weeks 12 or 52 between the biologics or between the naive and non-naive groups. Treatment termination was due mostly to nonresponse. Sequential treatment with the available biologics can be effective.

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