Persistency of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis in 2 Large Community Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biologics have transformed the management of moderate to severe psoriasis. The persistency of biologics lacks real-world data. OBJECTIVES: To quantify drug survival of infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETA), and ustekinumab (UST) and to identify potential factors affecting drug survival. METHODS: An observational, retrospective 2-centre study consisting of 906 patients from private practices in Ontario between July 2003 and June 13, 2016, was conducted, including patients with plaque psoriasis receiving commercial treatment with ADA, ETA, IFX, and UST. Paper and electronic records of each patient were reviewed. RESULTS: Median survival times for UST, IFX, ADA, and ETA were respectively, in months, 68, 23, 33, and 28. Female sex was determined to be a statistically significant positive predictor of drug survival. Our study was consistent with the literature in that UST had the highest survival rate compared to the other biologics, and the shape of our drug survival curve suggested that loss of drug efficacy is a stochastic occurrence. Compared to other studies, our data exhibited lower survival rates at various time points for all the biologics studied, and female sex did not predict drug survival in other studies. We also investigated potential reasons for differences in biologic survival times between different practices; the main differentiator was drug dosage, as higher dosages were associated with greater survival. CONCLUSION: UST has a higher drug survival rate than ADA, ETA, and IFX, as observed in other studies. When practice patterns are compared, dosage difference is the main factor that may cause differing survival rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".