Biologics in the Treatment of Psoriasis: Clinical and Economic Overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of biologic medications for psoriasis is a recent therapeutic advance. OBJECTIVE: To review clinical and economic data for biologic therapies in the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis. METHODS: Published meta-analyses and additional literature review identified randomized controlled trials. Analyses included the number needed to treat (NNT), the cost in Canadian dollars for the first year of treatment per the Canadian product monograph, and the estimated cost per responder achieving a 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75). RESULTS: Pooled NNTs were 1.3 (infliximab), 1.5 (ustekinumab 90 mg), 1.6 (adalimumab and ustekinumab 45 mg), 2.3 (etanercept), 4.1 (efalizumab), and 5.6 (alefacept). The annual treatment cost per patient was $19,825 to $37,600. The cost per patient achieving a PASI 75 response at 12 weeks ranged from $8,330 (adalimumab) to $71,371 (alefacept). CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests favorable cost and benefits of biologic psoriasis therapies, particularly adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".