Survival rates of biological therapies for psoriasis treatment in real‐world clinical practice: A Canadian multicentre retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Data on biologic drug survival in real-world psoriasis treatment are limited. There is a need to evaluate long-term trends of biologic use outside the realm of clinical trials. METHODS: A multicentre chart review was conducted with patients' data from September 2005 to September 2014. Kaplan-Meier plot analysis was used to determine 5-year drug survival rates. A log-rank test was used to compare the rates of drug survival between the studied biologics. RESULTS: For the 398 patients and 545 treatment series analysed, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5-year survival rates were 0.826, 0.687, 0.563, 0.475 and 0.420 with etanercept; 0.804, 0.648, 0.553, 0.508 and 0.508 with adalimumab; 0.838, 0.664, 0.554, 0.485 and 0.382 with infliximab; and 0.914, 0.856, 0.800, 0.755 and 0.755 with ustekinumab, respectively. A statistically significant difference was seen between ustekinumab and the other three biologics. CONCLUSION: A progressive decrease in treatment adherence was seen with all four biologics, as expected, but the survival rate of ustekinumab was highest.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".