Junko Takeshita1, Shuwei Wang2, Daniel B Shin3, Kristina Callis Duffin4, Gerald G Krueger4, Robert E Kalb5, Jamie D Weisman6, Brian R Sperber7, Michael B Stierstorfer8, Bruce A Brod9, Stephen M Schleicher10, Andrew D Robertson11, Kristin A Linn12, Russell T Shinohara12, Andrea B Troxel12, Abby S Van Voorhees13, Joel M Gelfand3. 1. Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: Junko.Takeshita@uphs.upenn.edu. 2. Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Dermatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah. 5. Department of Dermatology, State University of New York at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, New York. 6. Peachtree Dermatology Associates, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Colorado Springs Dermatology Clinic, Colorado Springs, Colorado. 8. East Penn Dermatology, North Wales, Pennsylvania. 9. Dermatology Associates of Lancaster, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 10. DermDox Centers for Dermatology, Hazleton, Pennsylvania. 11. National Psoriasis Foundation, Portland, Oregon. 12. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 13. Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of psoriasis therapies in real-world settings remains relatively unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the effectiveness of less commonly used systemic therapies and commonly used combination therapies for psoriasis. METHODS: This was a multicenter cross-sectional study of 203 patients with plaque psoriasis receiving less common systemic monotherapy (acitretin, cyclosporine, or infliximab) or common combination therapies (adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab and methotrexate) compared with 168 patients receiving methotrexate evaluated at 1 of 10 US outpatient dermatology sites participating in the Dermatology Clinical Effectiveness Research Network. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, patients on acitretin (relative response rate 2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-3.41), infliximab (relative response rate 1.93; 95% CI 1.26-2.98), adalimumab and methotrexate (relative response rate 3.04; 95% CI 2.12-4.36), etanercept and methotrexate (relative response rate 2.22; 95% CI 1.25-3.94), and infliximab and methotrexate (relative response rate 1.72; 95% CI 1.10-2.70) were more likely to have clear or almost clear skin compared with patients on methotrexate. There were no differences among treatments when response rate was defined by health-related quality of life. LIMITATIONS: Single time point assessment may result in overestimation of effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of therapies in clinical trials may overestimate their effectiveness as used in clinical practice. Although physician-reported relative response rates were different among therapies, absolute differences were small and did not correspond to differences in patient-reported outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of psoriasis therapies in real-world settings remains relatively unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the effectiveness of less commonly used systemic therapies and commonly used combination therapies for psoriasis. METHODS: This was a multicenter cross-sectional study of 203 patients with plaque psoriasis receiving less common systemic monotherapy (acitretin, cyclosporine, or infliximab) or common combination therapies (adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab and methotrexate) compared with 168 patients receiving methotrexate evaluated at 1 of 10 US outpatient dermatology sites participating in the Dermatology Clinical Effectiveness Research Network. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, patients on acitretin (relative response rate 2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-3.41), infliximab (relative response rate 1.93; 95% CI 1.26-2.98), adalimumab and methotrexate (relative response rate 3.04; 95% CI 2.12-4.36), etanercept and methotrexate (relative response rate 2.22; 95% CI 1.25-3.94), and infliximab and methotrexate (relative response rate 1.72; 95% CI 1.10-2.70) were more likely to have clear or almost clear skin compared with patients on methotrexate. There were no differences among treatments when response rate was defined by health-related quality of life. LIMITATIONS: Single time point assessment may result in overestimation of effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of therapies in clinical trials may overestimate their effectiveness as used in clinical practice. Although physician-reported relative response rates were different among therapies, absolute differences were small and did not correspond to differences in patient-reported outcomes.
Authors: Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-10-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kristian Reich; Frank O Nestle; Kim Papp; Jean-Paul Ortonne; Robert Evans; Cynthia Guzzo; Shu Li; Lisa T Dooley; Christopher E M Griffiths Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Oct 15-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Vera M R Heydendael; Phyllis I Spuls; Brent C Opmeer; Corianne A J M de Borgie; Johannes B Reitsma; Wouter F M Goldschmidt; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jan D Bos; Menno A de Rie Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-08-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A B Gottlieb; R G Langley; B E Strober; K A Papp; P Klekotka; K Creamer; E H Z Thompson; M Hooper; G Kricorian Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Ladan Afifi; Lindsey Shankle; April W Armstrong; Marc Boas; Alisha Bridges; Vivian Chiguil; Frank Doris; Kristina Callis Duffin; Eric Fielding; Roy Fleischmann; Joel M Gelfand; Matthew Kiselica; Catherine Kiselica; Brian LaFoy; John J Latella; Junko Takeshita; Sarah Truman; Marilyn T Wan; Vickie Wilkerson; Jashin J Wu; Michael P Siegel; Wilson Liao Journal: J Psoriasis Psoriatic Arthritis Date: 2017
Authors: Jalpa A Doshi; Junko Takeshita; Lionel Pinto; Penxiang Li; Xinyan Yu; Preethi Rao; Hema N Viswanathan; Joel M Gelfand Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: K Callis Duffin; H Yeung; J Takeshita; G G Krueger; A D Robertson; A B Troxel; D B Shin; A S Van Voorhees; J M Gelfand Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: I Y K Iskandar; D M Ashcroft; R B Warren; M Lunt; K McElhone; C H Smith; N J Reynolds; C E M Griffiths Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: J Beecker; K A Papp; J Dutz; R B Vender; R Gniadecki; C Cooper; P Gisondi; M Gooderham; C H Hong; M G Kirchhof; C W Lynde; C Maari; Y Poulin; L Puig Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 6.166