Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol ; 34(4): 769-778, 2020 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31633837

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular safety profile of biologic therapies used for psoriasis is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk of major cardiovascular events (CVEs; acute coronary syndrome, unstable angina, myocardial infarction and stroke) in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis treated with adalimumab, etanercept or ustekinumab in a large prospective cohort. METHODS: Prospective cohort study examining the comparative risk of major CVEs was conducted using the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register. The main analysis compared adults with chronic plaque psoriasis receiving ustekinumab with tumour necrosis-α inhibitors (TNFi: etanercept and adalimumab), whilst the secondary analyses compared ustekinumab, etanercept or methotrexate against adalimumab. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using overlap weights by propensity score to balance baseline covariates among comparison groups. RESULTS: We included 5468 biologic-naïve patients subsequently exposed (951 ustekinumab; 1313 etanercept; and 3204 adalimumab) in the main analysis. The secondary analyses also included 2189 patients receiving methotrexate. The median (p25-p75) follow-up times for patients using ustekinumab, TNFi, adalimumab, etanercept and methotrexate were as follows: 2.01 (1.16-3.21), 1.93 (1.05-3.34), 1.94 (1.09-3.32), 1.92 (0.93-3.45) and 1.43 (0.84-2.53) years, respectively. Ustekinumab, TNFi, adalimumab, etanercept and methotrexate groups had 7, 29, 23, 6 and 9 patients experiencing major CVEs, respectively. No differences in the risk of major CVEs were observed between biologic therapies [adjusted HR for ustekinumab vs. TNFi: 0.96 (95% CI 0.41-2.22); ustekinumab vs. adalimumab: 0.81 (0.30-2.17); etanercept vs. adalimumab: 0.81 (0.28-2.30)] and methotrexate against adalimumab [1.05 (0.34-3.28)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective cohort study, we found no significant differences in the risk of major CVEs between three different biologic therapies and methotrexate. Additional studies, with longer term follow-up, are needed to investigate the potential effects of biologic therapies on incidence of major CVEs.


Asunto(s)
Terapia Biológica/efectos adversos , Factores de Riesgo de Enfermedad Cardiaca , Psoriasis/tratamiento farmacológico , Adalimumab/efectos adversos , Adulto , Etanercept/efectos adversos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Metotrexato/efectos adversos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Ustekinumab/efectos adversos
2.
Br J Dermatol ; 177(3): 828-836, 2017 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28386916

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The Psoriasis Stratification to Optimise Relevant Therapy (PSORT) consortium has a collective aim to develop a prescribing algorithm to help stratify eligible patients with psoriasis to the most appropriate biological treatment. To facilitate the adoption of a stratified approach, it is necessary to first understand the factors driving the choice of first-line biological therapy. OBJECTIVES: To identify and quantify factors that influence the selection of the first-line biological therapy for people with psoriasis. METHODS: Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine the factors that influenced the probability of treatment selection, using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register from January 2012 to December 2015. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the findings to key assumptions. RESULTS: The main analysis was based on a dataset comprising 3040 people with psoriasis. The identified factors affecting first-line biological selection within the available therapies were: presence of psoriatic arthritis; patient weight; employment status; country of registration; and baseline disease severity. Importantly, the analysis showed a general shift in prescribing behaviour over time. These results were robust to sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers important insights into the factors influencing current prescribing practice for first-line biological therapies for people with psoriasis. It provides baseline data to inform the evaluation of future potential changes that may affect prescribing behaviour, such as stratified medicine.


Asunto(s)
Factores Biológicos/uso terapéutico , Terapia Biológica/métodos , Psoriasis/tratamiento farmacológico , Adulto , Algoritmos , Femenino , Humanos , Interleucinas/antagonistas & inhibidores , Masculino , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina , Medicamentos bajo Prescripción/uso terapéutico , Estudios Prospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Factor de Necrosis Tumoral alfa/antagonistas & inhibidores
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA