A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Treatment Patterns Over 1 Year in Patients with Psoriasis Treated with Ixekizumab or Guselkumab.
Guselkumab
Ixekizumab
Psoriasis
Treatment adherence
Treatment discontinuation
Treatment persistence
Treatment switching
Journal
Dermatology and therapy
ISSN: 2193-8210
Titre abrégé: Dermatol Ther (Heidelb)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101590450
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
02
12
2021
accepted:
21
01
2022
pubmed:
28
2
2022
medline:
28
2
2022
entrez:
27
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Persistence and adherence to psoriasis treatments reflect overall drug effectiveness, tolerability, and convenience. Limited data are available on the treatment patterns of ixekizumab, an interleukin (IL)-17A antagonist, vs. guselkumab, an IL-23 inhibitor. Our objective was to evaluate real-life psoriasis drug treatment patterns with ixekizumab vs. guselkumab. This retrospective observational study used United States insurance claims data from IBM Watson MarketScan Databases to analyze treatment patterns (including adherence, persistence, time on monotherapy, switching, and use of concomitant medications) for patients with 1 year, ≥ 6 months, and up to 30 months of follow-up. Outcomes were compared between ixekizumab and guselkumab on the balanced sample after applying inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Data for 1414 eligible patients (ixekizumab, N = 674 and guselkumab, N = 740) were assessed. Over the 1-year follow-up, adherence was greater for ixekizumab vs. guselkumab when evaluated by proportion of days covered ≥ 80% [odds ratio (OR) 1.77 (95% confidence interval, 1.41, 2.21), p < 0.001] and by medication possession ratio ≥ 80% [OR = 1.92 (1.54, 2.38), p < 0.001]. Persistence was longer for ixekizumab vs. guselkumab with a 60-day allowable gap [non-persistence hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval): 0.80 (0.69, 0.93), p = 0.005], but there were no differences with a 90-day allowable gap [HR = 0.98 (0.83, 1.17), p = 0.850]. Results assessed in patients with ≥ 6 months follow-up confirmed these findings. This retrospective analysis of a United States claims database used prescription refill data to estimate persistence/adherence. Based on real-world evidence using claims data, patients with psoriasis treated with ixekizumab had a greater adherence to and an equal or greater persistence with therapy vs. patients treated with guselkumab. In real-world settings, how consistently patients take a drug (adherence) and how long they continue taking it (persistence) are thought to reflect patients’ satisfaction with the combination of efficacy and tolerability of the treatment. In this study of patients with psoriasis, we compared these measures—regularity of prescription refills and continued time on drug—between patients receiving ixekizumab or guselkumab for their psoriasis. This information was taken from a large insurance claims database, and so reflects results among commercially insured patients in the United States. We found that patients taking ixekizumab more consistently obtained prescription refills during the study period. Patients taking ixekizumab or guselkumab continued treatment for similar lengths of time when we allowed a longer gap of 90 days between prescription refills, but when a shorter gap of 60 days was allowed, those on ixekizumab spent a longer time on treatment. The findings were consistent regardless of prior treatment with other similar drugs (biologics). Overall, these findings indicate that for ixekizumab, which is dosed once every 4 weeks, and guselkumab, which is dosed once every 8 weeks, patients took ixekizumab more regularly and continued on the drug for about the same or a longer amount of time compared to patients taking guselkumab. These results may help dermatology practitioners in selecting biologic drugs for their patients with psoriasis.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
In real-world settings, how consistently patients take a drug (adherence) and how long they continue taking it (persistence) are thought to reflect patients’ satisfaction with the combination of efficacy and tolerability of the treatment. In this study of patients with psoriasis, we compared these measures—regularity of prescription refills and continued time on drug—between patients receiving ixekizumab or guselkumab for their psoriasis. This information was taken from a large insurance claims database, and so reflects results among commercially insured patients in the United States. We found that patients taking ixekizumab more consistently obtained prescription refills during the study period. Patients taking ixekizumab or guselkumab continued treatment for similar lengths of time when we allowed a longer gap of 90 days between prescription refills, but when a shorter gap of 60 days was allowed, those on ixekizumab spent a longer time on treatment. The findings were consistent regardless of prior treatment with other similar drugs (biologics). Overall, these findings indicate that for ixekizumab, which is dosed once every 4 weeks, and guselkumab, which is dosed once every 8 weeks, patients took ixekizumab more regularly and continued on the drug for about the same or a longer amount of time compared to patients taking guselkumab. These results may help dermatology practitioners in selecting biologic drugs for their patients with psoriasis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35220545
doi: 10.1007/s13555-022-00686-1
pii: 10.1007/s13555-022-00686-1
pmc: PMC8941031
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
701-714Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Rheumatol Ther. 2015 Jun;2(1):59-71
pubmed: 27747492
J Invest Dermatol. 2018 Apr;138(4):775-784
pubmed: 29080680
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Jul;81(1):173-178
pubmed: 30914343
J Dermatolog Treat. 2022 Mar;33(2):848-856
pubmed: 32660282
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Apr;82(4):927-935
pubmed: 31712178
Br J Dermatol. 2020 Aug;183(2):294-302
pubmed: 32124442
J Invest Dermatol. 2015 Nov;135(11):2632-2640
pubmed: 26053050
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Aug;85(2):360-368
pubmed: 33253833
Br J Dermatol. 2020 Jun;182(6):1348-1358
pubmed: 31887225
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017 Feb;31(2):323-332
pubmed: 27600367
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020 Jun;29(6):675-683
pubmed: 32364664
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017 Jun;31(6):1004-1013
pubmed: 28190255
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018 Aug 21;12:1483-1503
pubmed: 30174415
Br J Dermatol. 2018 Feb;178(2):509-519
pubmed: 29094341
Br J Dermatol. 2021 Jun;184(6):1047-1058
pubmed: 32880909
Dermatol Ther. 2021 Mar;34(2):e14808
pubmed: 33491259
BMC Dermatol. 2018 Jul 11;18(1):5
pubmed: 29996929
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016 Jun;74(6):1057-1065.e4
pubmed: 26946986
J Dermatolog Treat. 2021 Sep;32(6):595-602
pubmed: 31714168
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jul;34(7):1524-1528
pubmed: 31953883
Value Health. 2010 Sep-Oct;13(6):805-12
pubmed: 21054657
Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2020 Jun;10(3):431-447
pubmed: 32200512
Br J Dermatol. 2019 Jan;180(1):86-93
pubmed: 29791721
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016 Apr;22(4):396-405
pubmed: 27023693
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020 Mar 09;14:517-527
pubmed: 32210539
Br J Dermatol. 2021 Jun;184(6):1094-1105
pubmed: 33289075
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Mar;76(3):418-431
pubmed: 28057361
J Dermatolog Treat. 2019 Mar;30(2):141-149
pubmed: 29799292
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016 Nov 17;10:2357-2367
pubmed: 27895471
Dermatology. 2018;234(1-2):1-12
pubmed: 30300876
PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e33486
pubmed: 22509259
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016 Dec;22(12):1457-1471
pubmed: 27882833