Observational studyJournal of the American Academy of Dermatology2014
Comparative effectiveness of less commonly used systemic monotherapies and common combination therapies for moderate to severe psoriasis in the clinical setting.
Observational study in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Study on the Key Genes and Molecular Mechanisms of IL-27 Promoting Keratinocytes Proliferation Based on Transcriptome Sequencing.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2023Article
- Real-World Biologic Adherence, Persistence, and Monotherapy Comparisons in US Patients with Psoriasis: Results from IBM MarketScanAdvances in therapy · 2022Article
- Position statement for a pragmatic approach to immunotherapeutics in patients with inflammatory skin diseases during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and beyond.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2021Article
- Comparative effectiveness of biological therapies on improvements in quality of life in patients with psoriasis.The British journal of dermatology · 2017Observational
- National Psoriasis Foundation Priorities for Patient-Centered Research: Proceedings from the 2016 Conference.Journal of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis · 2017Article
- Biologic therapy adherence, discontinuation, switching, and restarting among patients with psoriasis in the US Medicare population.Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2016Article
- Patient satisfaction with treatments for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in clinical practice.The British journal of dermatology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness of psoriasis therapies in real-world settings remains relatively unknown.
objectiveWe sought to compare the effectiveness of less commonly used systemic therapies and commonly used combination therapies for psoriasis.
methodsThis was a multicenter cross-sectional study of 203 patients with plaque psoriasis receiving less common systemic monotherapy (acitretin, cyclosporine, or infliximab) or common combination therapies (adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab and methotrexate) compared with 168 patients receiving methotrexate evaluated at 1 of 10 US outpatient dermatology sites participating in the Dermatology Clinical Effectiveness Research Network.
resultsIn adjusted analyses, patients on acitretin (relative response rate 2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-3.41), infliximab (relative response rate 1.93; 95% CI 1.26-2.98), adalimumab and methotrexate (relative response rate 3.04; 95% CI 2.12-4.36), etanercept and methotrexate (relative response rate 2.22; 95% CI 1.25-3.94), and infliximab and methotrexate (relative response rate 1.72; 95% CI 1.10-2.70) were more likely to have clear or almost clear skin compared with patients on methotrexate. There were no differences among treatments when response rate was defined by health-related quality of life. LIMITATIONS: Single time point assessment may result in overestimation of effectiveness.
conclusionsThe efficacy of therapies in clinical trials may overestimate their effectiveness as used in clinical practice. Although physician-reported relative response rates were different among therapies, absolute differences were small and did not correspond to differences in patient-reported outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.