TY - JOUR
T1 - Biologic and conventional systemic therapies show similar safety and efficacy in elderly and adult patients with moderate to severe psoriasis
AU - Garber, Caren
AU - Plotnikova, Natalia
AU - Au, Shiu Chung
AU - Sorensen, Eric P.
AU - Gottlieb, Alice
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2015 Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.
PY - 2015/8
Y1 - 2015/8
N2 - Background/Objective: Despite the aging population, few studies have documented the treatment of geriatric psoriasis.The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy, safety, and prescribing patterns of biologies and conventional systemic medications in elderly versus adult psoriasis. Methods: All patient visits coded for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (ICD-9 696.1 or 696.0) at theTufts Medical Center General Dermatology Clinic from January 1, 2008, to March 1, 2015 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The outcome measure used was the validated simple-measure for assessing psoriasis activity (S-MAPA), the product of the physician's global assessment and the body surface area. Results: 194 patients who underwent 278 treatment courses were included in the study. 48 patients were included in the elderly cohort (> 65 years old) and 146 in the adult cohort (18-64 years old). There was no significant difference in S-MAPA improvement at 12 weeks between the two cohorts when treated with biologies (42.92% improvement in adults, 48.77% in elderly; P=0.498) or conventional systemics (43.96% and 51.82%, respectively; P=0.448). Within the elderly cohort, there was no significant difference in efficacy of biologies versus conventional systemics at any time point. Topical prescription rates were significantly higher in the elderly cohort (P=0.004) while biologic prescription rates were significantly lower (P=0.014) despite the same baseline S-MAPA in both age groups. For both biologies and conventional systemics, there was no statistically significant intergroup difference in the rate of adverse events (P=0.322 for biologies; P=0.581 for conventional systemics) or infection (P=0.753 for biologies; P=0.828 for conventional systemics). Within the elderly cohort, there was a higher rate of adverse events with conventional systemic treatment than with biologic treatment (P=0.033). Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence to suggest that biologic and conventional systemic therapies are similarly safe and effective in the elderly and nonelderly cohorts. Within the elderly population, biologies may be a safer option than conventional systemic agents.
AB - Background/Objective: Despite the aging population, few studies have documented the treatment of geriatric psoriasis.The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy, safety, and prescribing patterns of biologies and conventional systemic medications in elderly versus adult psoriasis. Methods: All patient visits coded for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (ICD-9 696.1 or 696.0) at theTufts Medical Center General Dermatology Clinic from January 1, 2008, to March 1, 2015 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The outcome measure used was the validated simple-measure for assessing psoriasis activity (S-MAPA), the product of the physician's global assessment and the body surface area. Results: 194 patients who underwent 278 treatment courses were included in the study. 48 patients were included in the elderly cohort (> 65 years old) and 146 in the adult cohort (18-64 years old). There was no significant difference in S-MAPA improvement at 12 weeks between the two cohorts when treated with biologies (42.92% improvement in adults, 48.77% in elderly; P=0.498) or conventional systemics (43.96% and 51.82%, respectively; P=0.448). Within the elderly cohort, there was no significant difference in efficacy of biologies versus conventional systemics at any time point. Topical prescription rates were significantly higher in the elderly cohort (P=0.004) while biologic prescription rates were significantly lower (P=0.014) despite the same baseline S-MAPA in both age groups. For both biologies and conventional systemics, there was no statistically significant intergroup difference in the rate of adverse events (P=0.322 for biologies; P=0.581 for conventional systemics) or infection (P=0.753 for biologies; P=0.828 for conventional systemics). Within the elderly cohort, there was a higher rate of adverse events with conventional systemic treatment than with biologic treatment (P=0.033). Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence to suggest that biologic and conventional systemic therapies are similarly safe and effective in the elderly and nonelderly cohorts. Within the elderly population, biologies may be a safer option than conventional systemic agents.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84956682580&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 26267729
AN - SCOPUS:84956682580
SN - 1545-9616
VL - 14
SP - 846
EP - 852
JO - Journal of Drugs in Dermatology
JF - Journal of Drugs in Dermatology
IS - 8
ER -