| Summary: | <h4>Background</h4>Real-world clinical data on psoriasis patients receiving different biological agents is needed, especially in Asian populations.<h4>Objectives</h4>Our aim is to compare and analyze the efficacy and safety profile of four biological agents (etanercept, adalimumab, ustekinumab and secukinumab) in a real-world setting in Taiwan.<h4>Methods</h4>We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of all patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) ≥ 10) who received etanercept, adalimumab, ustekinumab or secukinumab between January 2011 and December 2018 in a tertiary hospital in Taiwan.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 119 treatment episodes in 75 patients were included in this study. Ustekinumab was used in 49 treatment episodes, followed by secukinumab in 46 treatment episodes, adalimumab in 14 treatment episodes and etanercept in 10 treatment episodes. The proportion of the biologic-naïve was highest in etanercept (100%) and lowest in secukinumab (23.9%). The PASI-75, -90 and -100 were the highest in secukinumab (91.3%, 82.6%, 41.3%, respectively), followed by ustekinumab (79.6%, 44.9%, 16.3%), adalimumab (64.3%, 28.6%, 7.1%) and etanercept (50.0%, 30.0%, 0%). The rate of adverse events that required treatment was highest for secukinumab (15.2%), followed by adalimumab (14.3%), ustekinumab (8.2%), and etanercept (0%), including 4 cases of infections, 2 cases of cardiovascular diseases and 4 cases of cancers.<h4>Conclusions</h4>This real world data showed differential efficacy and safety of the four biological agents.
|
|---|