Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29590279›Full record

Observational studyJAMA dermatology2018

Comparison of Drug Discontinuation, Effectiveness, and Safety Between Clinical Trial Eligible and Ineligible Patients in BADBIR.

Kayleigh J Mason, Jonathan N W N Barker, Catherine H Smith, Philip J Hampton, Mark Lunt, Kathleen McElhone, Richard B Warren, Zenas Z N Yiu, Christopher E M Griffiths, A David Burden and 1 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JAMA dermatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 39 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Kayleigh J MasonDivision of Musculoskeletal and Dermatological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Jonathan N W N BarkerSt John's Institute of Dermatology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Catherine H SmithSt John's Institute of Dermatology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Philip J HamptonNewcastle Dermatology, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Mark LuntDivision of Musculoskeletal and Dermatological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Kathleen McElhoneDivision of Musculoskeletal and Dermatological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Richard B WarrenDivision of Musculoskeletal and Dermatological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Zenas Z N YiuDermatology Centre, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Christopher E M GriffithsDivision of Musculoskeletal and Dermatological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
A David BurdenDepartment of Dermatology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
BADBIR Study Group
University of Manchester · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBEdinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBNewcastle upon Tyne Hospital · GBSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Patients with psoriasis enrolled in clinical trials of biologics may not be representative of the real-world population. There is evidence that patients ineligible for such trials have a greater risk of serious adverse events (SAEs), but the effect on drug discontinuation and effectiveness are unknown. Objective: To determine whether (1) drug discontinuation, (2) effectiveness, and (3) rates of SAEs differ in patients with psoriasis categorized as eligible or ineligible for clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational study using 157 dermatology centers in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland was carried out wherein we applied the eligibility criteria of clinical trials of biologic therapies for psoriasis to patients who were being followed up in the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR) and being prescribed biologics as part of standard clinical care. Patients with psoriasis registered to BADBIR who were taking etanercept (enbrel only; n = 1509), adalimumab (n = 4000), and ustekinumab (n = 1627) with at least 1 follow-up visit. Eligibility criteria were extracted from phase 3 licensing trials for etanercept, adalimumab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. Patients in BADBIR with a missing baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) or baseline PASI value less than 10 (etanercept) or less than 12 (adalimumab; ustekinumab) but who would otherwise be eligible were investigated separately. Eligibility categories applied to BADBIR included: eligible, ineligible, insufficient baseline PASI only, and missing baseline PASI only. Main Outcomes and Measures: (1) Drug discontinuation: cumulative incidence at 12 months by stop reason per eligibility category and drug; (2) effectiveness: linear regression of absolute change in PASI from baseline to 6 and 12 months; and (3) SAEs: incidence rate ratio (IRR) at 12 months between eligibility categories per drug. Results: The mean (SD) age of the 7136 patients included in the analysis was 45 (13) years and 2924 (41%) were women and 4212 (59%) were men. Of 7136 patients, 839 (56%) etanercept, 2219 (56%) adalimumab, and 754 (46%) ustekinumab registrations were categorized as eligible. The most common reasons for ineligibility were diabetes (etanercept, 143 [9%]; ustekinumab, 201 [12%]) and nonchronic plaque psoriasis (adalimumab, 157 [4%]). Patients categorized as ineligible (etanercept, 367 [24%]; adalimumab, 282 [7%]; ustekinumab, 394 [24%]) achieved a smaller absolute change in PASI after 6 and 12 months (adalimumab, ustekinumab), and had significantly higher rates of SAEs compared with the eligible category (etanercept: IRR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6; adalimumab: IRR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.5-2.6; ustekinumab: IRR, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.1-3.8). No significant differences in drug discontinuation were observed between categories. Conclusions and Relevance: Clinical trial effectiveness and safety outcomes are not representative of real-world patients in BADBIR patients categorized as ineligible for such trials.

Indexed as

AdalimumabDermatologic AgentsEtanerceptHumansIrelandPatient SelectionPsoriasisTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomUstekinumabWithholding TreatmentAdalimumabDermatologic AgentsEtanerceptUstekinumab

Identifiers

PMID29590279
PMCPMC5876819
OpenAlexW2794670498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.