The journey for US psoriasis patients prescribed a topical: a retrospective database evaluation of patient progression to oral and/or biologic treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A specific sequence for psoriasis (PsO) therapy has not been defined.Objectives: This retrospective, observational cohort study characterized pathways of PsO treatment over 3 years for newly diagnosed patients initially treated with a topical medication.Methods: Adult PsO patients from the Explorys database (March 1 2011 to June 30 2015) were grouped according to medication-use patterns: 1) discontinued therapy; 2) topical therapy only; 3) switched/added an oral agent; and 4) switched/added a biologic agent.Results: Of 6875 patients, 907 (13.2%) discontinued treatment; 2544 (37.0%) used topical only, and 3319 (45.7%) and 819 (11.9%) switched/added-on an oral and/or biologic agent, respectively. Patients progressed to biologic treatment faster than to oral agents (median 254 vs. 378 d; p < .0001). Using an oral agent before a biologic significantly delayed biologic initiation compared to progressing to biologic directly from topical (median 456 vs. 90 d; p < .0001).Limitations: Disease severity and the reason for treatment transitions were not assessed.Conclusions: Patients initiating topical PsO treatment progressed to biologics faster than to oral agent using an oral agent prior to a biologic significantly delayed biologic initiation. Maintaining patients on an effective topical treatment may minimize the need for a switch to oral and biologics.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".