首页> 外文OA文献 >Comparative effectiveness of less commonly used systemic monotherapies and common combination therapies for moderate to severe psoriasis in the clinical setting.
【2h】

Comparative effectiveness of less commonly used systemic monotherapies and common combination therapies for moderate to severe psoriasis in the clinical setting.

机译:在临床环境中较不常用的全身性单一疗法和常规联合疗法对中度至重度银屑病的比较有效性。

摘要

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of psoriasis therapies in real-world settings remains relatively unknown.OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the effectiveness of less commonly used systemic therapies and commonly used combination therapies for psoriasis.METHODS: This 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.RESULTS: In 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.CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
机译:背景:在现实世界中,牛皮癣治疗的有效性仍然相对未知。目的:我们试图比较不常用的全身疗法和常用联合疗法治疗牛皮癣的有效性。方法:这是一项针对203的多中心横断面研究斑块状牛皮癣患者较少接受全身性单一疗法(阿维A,环孢素或英夫利昔单抗)或普通联合疗法(阿达木单抗,依那西普或英夫利昔单抗和甲氨蝶呤),而接受甲氨蝶呤的168名患者在参与皮肤病学的美国10个门诊皮肤病学站点中的1个进行了评估临床效果研究网络。结果:在调整后的分析中,使用阿维A(相对缓解率2.01; 95%置信区间[CI] 1.18-3.41),英夫利昔单抗(相对缓解率1.93; 95%CI 1.26-2.98),阿达木单抗和甲氨蝶呤的患者(相对反应率3.04; 95%CI 2.12-4.36),依那西普和甲氨蝶呤(相对反应大鼠e 2.22;与接受甲氨蝶呤治疗的患者相比,95%CI 1.25-3.94),英夫利昔单抗和甲氨蝶呤(相对缓解率1.72; 95%CI 1.10-2.70)更可能具有透明或几乎透明的皮肤。在根据与健康相关的生活质量定义缓解率时,各治疗方案之间没有差异。局限性:单时间点评估可能会导致有效性高估。结论:临床试验中治疗的有效性可能会高估其在临床实践中的有效性。尽管医师报告的相对反应率在疗法之间不同,但绝对差异很小,并不对应于患者报告的结局差异。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号