Biologic Drug Survival in Psoriasis: A Systematic Review & Comparative Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Drug survival studies have been utilized to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of biologics used in psoriasis. However, the increasing volume of drug survival data suffers from large variability due to regional differences in drug availability, patient selection and biologic reimbursement. Objectives To conduct a meta-analysis of biologic drug survival to determine comparative effectiveness of the biologics in a real-world setting. Methods Studies reporting drug survival for biologic therapy in psoriasis were identified by a systematic literature search. Hazard ratio data for drug discontinuation were estimated directly from published Kaplan-Meier estimator curves at year 1, 2 and 5 of treatment and compared pairwise for the following biologics: ustekinumab, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, secukinumab and ixekizumab. This pooled hazard ratios were used to estimate 2- and 5-year overall drug survival rates. Results Ustekinumab had the longest persistence at 2 years and 5 years among all biologics included in this meta-analysis. Adalimumab was superior to etanercept and infliximab at 5 years. Pooled 5-year drug survival rates for adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab were 46.3%, 35.9% and 34.7%, respectively. 2- and 5-year data were not available for anti-IL-17 drugs, but at 1-year ustekinumab outperformed secukinumab, the latter being equal to anti-TNFs. Conclusions Ustekinumab is characterized by longer drug survival than TNF inhibitors and IL-17 inhibitors. Estimated pooled 2- and 5-year drug survival rates may serve as a useful tool for patient communication and clinical decision-making.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".