Survival rates of biological therapies for psoriasis treatment in real‐world clinical practice: A Canadian multicentre retrospective study

Marinas, Joseph E.C.; Kim, Whan B.; Shahbaz, Ali; Qiang, Judy; Greaves, Simón; Yeung, Jensen

doi:10.1111/ajd.12548

Cited by 21 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8,[10][11][12][13][14] However, the survival rates were lower compared to a recent study by Marinas et al 10 For instance, 2-and 4-year survival rates for UST in our study were 0.74 and 0.60, respectively, compared to 0.856 and 0.755 found by Marinas et al 10 A similar 4-year survival rate was found by Gniadecki et al 8 as well. Reasons for the lower survival rate could include differences in patient characteristics, as the majority of the data from Gniadecki et al 8 and all of the data from Marinas et al 10 were from academic institutions compared to private dermatologic practices in our study. Another reason for lower survival in our cohort may have been the availability of alternative therapies as major clinical trial programs for newer agents were introduced during this period, including 3 IL-17 inhibitors and the oral agents, apremilast and tofacitinib.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Persistency of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis in 2 Large Community Practices

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Persistency of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis in 2 Large Community Practices

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The drug survival for each biologic and the status of patients being biologic-naïve or -experienced are shown in Supplementary Table S1 . There were 28 studies 9 – 36 (13,303 patients) reporting data for etanercept, 32 studies 9 – 11 , 13 – 19 , 21 – 31 , 33 – 43 (12,109 patients) for adalimumab, 20 studies 9 , 11 , 13 – 19 , 21 – 24 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 40 (2,613 patients) for infliximab, and 22 studies 9 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 19 , 22 – 31 , 33 – 36 , 40 , 44 , 45 (4,606 patients) for ustekinumab.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drug survival of biologics in treating psoriasis: a meta-analysis of real-world evidence

Lin

Wang

Chi

2018

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drug survival of biologics represents their real-world effectiveness and safety. We conducted a meta-analysis of real-world evidence on the drug survival of biologics in treating psoriasis. We searched the PubMed, CENTRAL, and EMBASE databases from inception to 7th October 2017 for studies reporting the annual drug survival for at least 1 year. Two authors independently screened and selected relevant studies, and assessed their risk of bias. A third author was available for arbitrating discrepancies. We conducted a random-effects model meta-analysis to obtain the respective pooled drug survival from year 1 to 4. We conducted subgroup analysis on biologic-naïve subjects, discontinuation for loss of efficacy and adverse effects. We included 37 studies with 32,631 subjects. The drug survival for all biologics decreased with time, dropping from 66% at year 1 to 41% at year 4 for etanercept, from 69% to 47% for adalimumab, from 61% to 42% for infliximab, and from 82% to 56% for ustekinumab. Ustekinumab was associated with the highest drug survival in all and biologic-naïve subjects. Etanercept was associated with the lowest drug survival and was most commonly discontinued for loss of efficacy. Infliximab was most frequently associated with discontinuation for adverse effects. Clinicians may use this study as a reference in treating psoriasis.

show abstract

“…The largest study was the multicentric study called OSCAR, conducted in Italy between 2007 and 2011, including 650 patients with a mean follow-up of 2.4 years [18]. Another important study was a multicentric Canadian study that enrolled 398 patients from 2005 to 2014 and followed them for an average of 2.5 years [38]. The latter study had information on all 4 biological therapies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinical outcomes (mainly PASI) were reported in 75% of prospective studies [27, 39, 47-53], in about 50% of prospective registries [20, 24, 54-61] and retrospective studies [29, 30, 32, 34, 37, 62-70], and in no retrospective administrative databases/claims. Drug survival of biological therapies was reported in over 60% of prospective registries [14, 20, 21, 24, 25, 31, 54, 57, 71-74], retrospective studies [18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 37, 38, 68, 70, 75-77] and administrative databases/claims [28, 35, 36, 40-42, 46], and less frequently (33%) in prospective studies [27, 33, 52, 78]. Subanalyses on reasons of discontinuation, such as switching, dose augmentation, or biological therapy restarting, were scanty.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness End Points in Real-World Studies on Biological Therapies in Psoriasis: Systematic Review with Focus on Drug Survival

Costanzo¹,

Malara²,

Pelucchi³

et al. 2018

Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psoriasis is a complex and chronic disease, and, in most cases, therapies are required during all patients’ lifetime. The efficacy and safety profiles of biological therapies are well established, but their effectiveness is still open to discussion. We performed a systematic review to summarize how the effectiveness of biological therapies for psoriasis is measured in real-world studies and to understand whether drug survival, a recent alternative outcome to clinical ones, is a recurrent and valid outcome of effectiveness. In March 2017, we searched for quantitative epidemiological data of psoriasis treatments using PubMed/Medline and EMBASE, and we included 65 publications. The retrospective study design (37%) was most frequent, followed by prospective registries (29%), prospective studies (19%), and retrospective administrative databases/claims. Drug survival was reported in over 60% of prospective registries and retrospective studies, and less frequently in prospective studies. A general consensus emerged in the definition of drug survival as the time patients remain under treatment with a specific therapy, and in its interpretation as an overall marker of treatment success and treatment adherence, as it represents simultaneously information on drug efficacy, drug safety, and patient satisfaction. In conclusion, notwithstanding some limitations, drug survival is a useful measurement of biological therapy effectiveness for psoriasis in daily practice. Its major advantage is that it can be computed also in already collected databases without any specific clinical information on psoriasis. This outcome, combined with evidence on clinical markers of effectiveness, can contribute to better understanding the performance of this expensive class of drugs.

show abstract

Survival rates of biological therapies for psoriasis treatment in real‐world clinical practice: A Canadian multicentre retrospective study

Abstract: A progressive decrease in treatment adherence was seen with all four biologics, as expected, but the survival rate of ustekinumab was highest.

Cited by 21 publications

References 11 publications

Persistency of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis in 2 Large Community Practices

Persistency of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis in 2 Large Community Practices

Drug survival of biologics in treating psoriasis: a meta-analysis of real-world evidence

Effectiveness End Points in Real-World Studies on Biological Therapies in Psoriasis: Systematic Review with Focus on Drug Survival

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About