Outcomes of Biologic Use in Asian Compared with Non-Hispanic White Adult Psoriasis Patients from the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Real-world data are limited comparing Asian and White patients with psoriasis using biologic therapy. This study compared the 6-month effectiveness of biologic therapy between Asian and White plaque patients with psoriasis in the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry. METHODS: Analyses included biologic initiations and 6-month follow-up visits from self-identified Asian (n = 293) and White (n = 2314) patients in the USA/Canada (4/2015-4/2020). Outcomes included: Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75, disease activity measures [body surface area (BSA) ≤ 1, BSA ≤ 3, PASI90, PASI100, Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) 0/1], and patient-reported outcomes [Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) 0/1, itch, fatigue, skin pain, EuroQoL visual analog scale (EQ-VAS), patient global assessment, Work Productivity Activity and Impairment (WPAI) domains]. Unadjusted regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for achievement of binary outcomes and difference in mean change in continuous outcomes (β, 95% CI) at 6 months, followed by adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, alcohol, smoking, health insurance, education, comorbidities, scalp psoriasis morphology, psoriatic arthritis, biologic class, previous biologics, and baseline outcome value. RESULTS: Asians had lower proportions of women (32.8% versus 49.1%) and obesity (27.3% versus 54.5%), and higher proportions on Medicaid (19.9% versus 8.8%), graduated college (50.9% versus 40.1%) and never smoked (67.1% versus 44.1%). In unadjusted analyses, Asians had 52% higher odds of achieving PASI75 versus White patients (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.15, 2.02). After adjustment, the association was attenuated (OR 1.11; 0.81, 1.52). Secondary outcomes experienced similar patterns except for DLQI: Asians had 33% lower odds of achieving DLQI 0/1 in both the unadjusted (OR 0.67; 0.50, 0.90) and adjusted (OR 0.67; 0.49, 0.92) models. CONCLUSION: Unadjusted differences in biologic therapy effectiveness between Asians compared with White patients were likely explained by differences in demographic, lifestyle, and psoriatic disease characteristics between groups. However, Asians still experienced lesser improvements in skin-related quality of life, even after adjustment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".