Department of Dermatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Apr;176(4):1001-1009. doi: 10.1111/bjd.15023. Epub 2017 Mar 10.
The efficacy of etanercept and ustekinumab in psoriasis has been compared in one randomized controlled trial. Comparison of the long-term effectiveness of biologics in daily-practice psoriasis treatment is currently lacking.
To compare the effectiveness between the three widely used outpatient biologics adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab in daily-practice psoriasis treatment and to correct for confounders.
Data were extracted from the prospective, multicentre BioCAPTURE registry. Multilevel linear regression analyses (MLRAs) and generalized estimating equation (GEE) analyses were performed on the course of mean Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and PASI 75 (≥ 75% reduction vs. baseline). Both models were corrected for confounders. Subgroup analyses for biological dose were performed.
We included 356 patients with 513 treatment episodes: 178 adalimumab, 245 etanercept and 90 ustekinumab. MLRA showed a similar effectiveness between adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab after 1 year, but the highest effectiveness for ustekinumab during 5 years of treatment (P = 0·047; ustekinumab vs. etanercept, P = 0·019). GEE analysis revealed a higher chance of attaining PASI 75 with adalimumab and ustekinumab than with etanercept at 1 year of treatment. A higher than label dose was more often used in patients treated with etanercept (adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab: respectively 31·5%, 55·1% and 17% after 1 year, P < 0·001; 39·3%, 71·4% and 24% after 5 years, P < 0·001).
Compared with etanercept, ustekinumab had the highest effectiveness during 5 years of treatment. Patients receiving adalimumab and ustekinumab more often reached PASI 75 than those on etanercept at 1 year of treatment. Dose escalation was more frequent in etanercept and adalimumab than in ustekinumab.
依那西普和乌司奴单抗在银屑病中的疗效已在一项随机对照试验中进行了比较。目前缺乏对生物制剂在日常临床银屑病治疗中的长期有效性的比较。
比较阿达木单抗、依那西普和乌司奴单抗三种广泛应用的门诊生物制剂在日常临床银屑病治疗中的有效性,并对混杂因素进行校正。
数据来自前瞻性、多中心的 BioCAPTURE 登记处。对平均银屑病面积和严重程度指数(PASI)和 PASI75(与基线相比≥75%改善)的病程进行多水平线性回归分析(MLRAs)和广义估计方程(GEE)分析。两种模型均校正混杂因素。对生物剂量进行亚组分析。
共纳入 356 例患者的 513 个治疗周期:178 例阿达木单抗,245 例依那西普和 90 例乌司奴单抗。MLRA 显示,在治疗 1 年后,阿达木单抗、依那西普和乌司奴单抗的疗效相似,但在 5 年的治疗过程中乌司奴单抗的疗效最高(P=0.047;乌司奴单抗与依那西普相比,P=0.019)。GEE 分析显示,在治疗 1 年后,阿达木单抗和乌司奴单抗达到 PASI75 的可能性高于依那西普。与依那西普相比,使用高于标签剂量的情况更常见于接受依那西普治疗的患者(治疗 1 年后阿达木单抗、依那西普和乌司奴单抗的分别为 31.5%、55.1%和 17%,P<0.001;治疗 5 年后分别为 39.3%、71.4%和 24%,P<0.001)。
与依那西普相比,乌司奴单抗在 5 年的治疗过程中疗效最高。在治疗 1 年后,接受阿达木单抗和乌司奴单抗治疗的患者比接受依那西普治疗的患者更常达到 PASI75。依那西普和阿达木单抗的剂量升级比乌司奴单抗更频繁。