Satisfaction and Awareness of Systemic Psoriasis Treatments: A National Survey Comparing Biologic and Nonbiologic Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:There is ongoing development of new therapies for psoriasis, including biologic and systemic agents such as interleukin-17, interleukin-23, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors. The development of these agents has changed the landscape of psoriasis treatment options.Objective:The objective of this study was to characterize the impact of newer biologic and systemic agents approved by June 2016 on patient outcomes. We sought to evaluate and compare biologic users and nonbiologic systemic users with respect to their treatment awareness and satisfaction.Methods:We conducted a national Canadian survey from July to September 2016 on adult patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using biologic agents or nonbiologic systemic agents as their current primary treatment modality. Patients were asked to evaluate their overall satisfaction with their treatment agent and their awareness of other treatment options. Responses from biologic and nonbiologic systemic users were compared.Results:Overall, 343 participants were included (biologic users: n = 218; nonbiologic users: n = 125). Treatment satisfaction: Biologic users had a higher overall satisfaction score than nonbiologic users (<i>P</i> < .001). Among nonbiologic agents, apremilast (62%) was associated with the highest satisfaction proportion. Among biologic agents, ustekinumab (77%) and adalimumab (72%) were associated with the highest proportions of satisfaction. With respect to treatment awareness, 30% of nonbiologic patients did not have enough information to form an opinion about biologics.Conclusions:This study demonstrates the greater treatment satisfaction of biologic users compared with nonbiologic users for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Given that nearly one-third of nonbiologic users did not have enough information to form an opinion about biologic agents, physicians may consider counselling these patients on the use of biologic agents for psoriasis management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".