Abstract
Guselkumab treatment outcomes and persistence were assessed in a real-world cohort of Finnish patients with difficult-to-treat plaque psoriasis over a median follow-up of 1 year. Data on 181 patients who initiated guselkumab at the 15 study centres were collected retrospectively from the patient charts. Prior exposure to biologic therapies was common, with 56% and 35% having used at least 1 and 2 biologics, respectively. Median guselkumab treatment duration was 11 months with 21 patients (12%) discontinuing treatment during follow-up. Of 85 patients with a follow-up duration of at least 1 year, 73 (86%) were still on guselkumab at 1 year. Significant improvements during follow-up were seen in the absolute Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores with 32 patients (80%) having absolute PASI ≤ 2 after a 9–14-month treatment. Guselkumab treatment was effective and treatment persistence was high in the nationwide Finnish real-life setting.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | adv00631 |
Number of pages | 5 |
Journal | Acta Dermato-Venereologica |
Volume | 102 |
Early online date | 14 Dec 2021 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2022 |
Publication type | A1 Journal article-refereed |
Funding
The authors thank Petri Mankinen and Carola Ekstedt for their expertise in study management and Tuomas Lundström for his expertise in data management. This study was supported by Janssen-Cilag Oy (Finland). Conflicts of interest: TM received honoraria from Abbvie, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Eli Lilly, JanssenCilag, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma for consulting and/or speaking. PN received educational grants from Celgene, Novartis, Medac and Sanofi, and honoraria for consulting/speaking from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Mylan, Orion, UCB Pharma. TH is a partner, employee and chairman of the board of ESiOR Oy, and reports grants and nonfinancial support from Janssen-Cilag to ESiOR Oy during the conduct of the study. ES is a partner, employee and CEO of ESiOR Oy, and reports grants and nonfinancial support from JanssenCilag Oy to ESiOR Oy during the conduct of the study. RN and CW are employees of Janssen-Cilag. TR has received educational grants from UCB, AbbVie, Janssen and Novartis; and honoraria from Abbvie, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Lilly, Novartis and UCB for consulting and/or speaking. JH-N has received educational grants from Abbvie, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma and UCB; honoraria from Novartis and Orion Pharma for consulting and/or speaking. PLi has received honoraria from Amgen for consulting and educational grants from Abbvie, Jans-sen, Leo Pharma, Medac, Novartis, and Sanofi. IS has received educational grants from pharmaceutical companies (e.g. Janssen, Novartis, Abbvie, Takeda). KT has received educational grants form Sanofi Genzyme and honoraria from Abbvie, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Janssen-Cilag and UCB Pharma for consulting and/or speaking. AT has received educational grants from Amgen, Leo Pharma, Novartis,Abbvie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, and UCB Pharma. KV has received educational grants from Janssen-Cilag and honoraria from Abbvie and Amgen for consulting and/or speaking. SI has received educational grants from Novartis, Janssen and Medac. P.S. has received educational grants from Celgene, Novartis, Abbvie and Sanofi. LH has received educational grants from Takeda, JanssenCilag, Novartis, AbbVie and LEO Pharma, honoraria from Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Abbvie and UCB Pharma for consulting and/ or speaking, and is an investigator for Abbvie. RP has received educational grants from AbbVie and Janssen; honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme and UCB for consulting and/or speaking; participated in clinical studies spon- sored by AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Regeneron. RH, JH, TI, KM, and PLe have no conflicts of interest to declare. The authors thank Petri Mankinen and Carola Ekstedt for their expertise in study management and Tuomas Lundstr?m for his expertise in data management. This study was supported by Janssen-Cilag Oy (Finland). There are no tender mechanisms or binding guidelines that determine the order in which biologic therapies should be used. Instead, the Finnish dermatologists are free to choose the clinically most appropriate biologic therapy for their patients. Intravenous drugs are funded by the municipalities (from the hospital budget), whereas self-administered prescription drugs, including guselku-mab, are funded by the Social Security Institution of Finland. Currently, biologic therapies for PsO are reimbursed for patients with severe and difficulttotreat chronic PsO. Since guselkumab was the first IL23inhibitor on the market, it was most likely used in patients having failed other treatments. Despite this, the findings of this nationwide study support high treatment persistence and effectiveness of guselkumab for the treatment of PsO in the Finnish real-world setting.
Keywords
- Guselkumab
- Persistence
- Psoriasis
- Realworld
- Treatment outcome
Publication forum classification
- Publication forum level 2
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Dermatology