Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Dear Editor,
We read with great interest the article “Long-term psoriasis control with guselkumab, adalimumab, secukinumab, or ixekizumab in the USA” recently published by Fitzgerald et al. in this journal. The authors compared treatment persistence, reinitiation, and rates of discontinuation in patients with psoriasis initiated on guselkumab, adalimumab, ixekizumab, or secukinumab using administrative claims data. The results demonstrated better persistence and higher remission rates with guselkumab compared to the other biologics studied [1]. With a growing body of literature related to real-world treatment patterns of biologics in psoriasis, we feel there is a particular need for better understanding the methodologies and interpretations of these types of studies to inform clinical context [2].
Methodology
When considering treatment pattern data, it is important to keep in mind that variability in definitions and methodologies employed among studies can lead to drastically different results, even when using the same data source. This makes it difficult to compare treatment outcomes between studies. When using claims data sets, persistence on a medication is based on prescription refill history. For many reasons (e.g., change of insurance or drug holidays), patients may experience a gap between refills, which is defined as a treatment gap. This gap may be based on a fixed time interval or, alternatively, based on varying gap lengths that correspond to different drug dosing frequencies [3,4,5]. The published study by Fitzgerald et al. utilized a 2× dosing interval gap definition, which introduces some limitations. For example, in comparing persistence of the available biologics for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, one biologic is considered non-persistent after 14 days of missed doses, while another biologic is considered persistent even after close to half a year of missed doses. The methodology used by the authors could therefore lead to a bias that unfairly favors IL-23 inhibitors, which are dosed infrequently, and against other classes of biologics that are dosed more frequently. Therefore, it would be helpful to include sensitivity analyses using treatment gap definitions independent of dosing schedules in future studies measuring treatment persistence. Table 1 gives an illustration of the different treatment gap definitions used for evaluating biologics in psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis. Additionally, the rationale for not including ustekinumab in the current study, because a similar study comparing treatment persistence with ustekinumab and other biologics was recently published by the same group [6], is not scientifically robust. Moreover, inclusion of other IL-23 inhibitors would have helped conclude if study outcomes are related to a class effect specific to IL-23 inhibitors versus guselkumab alone.
Second, days of supply in claims databases could vary and may differ from the recommended dosing duration. Imputation on days of supply for only one of the drugs being compared that differed from the recommended dosing duration could introduce bias in persistence analysis [7].
Third, Fitzgerald et al. did not consider adjustment of baseline heterogeneity between treatment groups for potential bias, which is inherent in observational studies. Assessment of heterogeneity in observational studies should consider methods to control confounding, such as matching and re-weighting, for comparative effectiveness [8].
Furthermore, when assessing treatment patterns using administrative claims databases, one should consider evaluating both adherence, which measures the actual days on treatment without counting the gaps, and persistence to provide a more comprehensive assessment of real-world treatment effectiveness. The medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC) are two common methods to estimate adherence or compliance to treatment, which help determine whether a patient is taking their medication as prescribed, regardless of the dosing schedules or treatment gaps. Fitzgerald and colleagues did not report these measures.
Clinical interpretation
We challenge the authors on their use of the terms “disease control” and “remission.” While persistence is accepted as a proxy for effectiveness, it is inappropriate to generalize persistence data as “disease control,” since persistence data are influenced by many factors, including effectiveness, but also by safety, tolerability, healthcare systems, and patient access to therapy. Regarding remission, a patient with no claims for psoriasis-related treatment post-discontinuation with ≥ 6 months of follow-up was defined as in “remission.” Yet, claims for topical therapies were allowed, which is incongruent with the definition of remission. Furthermore, this definition of “remission” does not consider the wide variety of factors that contribute to treatment patterns, including loss of insurance coverage or termination of systemic therapies while a patient is pregnant. Importantly, “disease control” and “remission” are complex to define and are both influenced by multiple factors, all of which would require an evaluation of clinical outcome measures that are not contained within administrative claims databases. For data related to disease control and remission, the best sources will be large registries, such as CorEvitas [9], or prospective observation trials, such as the Psoriasis Study of Health Outcomes [10].
Indeed, administrative claims data are helpful in analyzing adherence and persistence patterns of different therapies. It is important to keep in mind, however, the nuances associated with such analyses and to interpret the results with caution. Finally, we assert there is a need for consistent and standardized definitions, assessments, and analyses across studies, especially for those evaluating biologics used to treat psoriasis, given the differing dosing intervals. Such standardization would improve interpretation of results, which may help healthcare practitioners utilize real-world treatment data to make treatment decisions for patients with psoriasis.
References
Fitzgerald T, Zhdanava M, Pilon D, et al. Long-term psoriasis control with guselkumab, adalimumab, secukinumab, or ixekizumab in the USA. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2023;13(4):1053–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-023-00910-6.
Murage MJ, Anderson A, Casso D, et al. Treatment patterns, adherence, and persistence among psoriasis patients treated with biologics in a real-world setting, overall and by disease severity. J Dermatolog Treat. 2019;30(2):141–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546634.2018.1479725.
Cramer JA, Roy A, Burrell A, et al. Medication compliance and persistence: terminology and definitions. Value Health. 2008;11(1):44–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00213.x.
Leslie SR, Gwadry-Sridhar F, Thiebaud P, Patel BV. Calculating medication compliance, adherence and persistence in administrative pharmacy claims databases. Pharmaceutical Program. 2008;1(1):13–9. https://doi.org/10.1179/175709208X334614.
Pina Vegas L, Penso L, Claudepierre P, Sbidian E. Long-term persistence of first-line biologics for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in the French health insurance database. JAMA Dermatol. 2022;158(5):513–22. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.0364.
Pilon D, Fitzgerald T, Zhdanava M, et al. Risk of treatment discontinuation among patients with psoriasis initiated on ustekinumab and other biologics in the USA. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022;12:971–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-022-00707-z.
Xu C, Teeple A, Wu B, Fitzgerald T, Feldman SR. Drug adherence and persistence of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis treated with biologic medications in a US Commercially Insured Population. Dermatology. 2022;238(3):438–47. https://doi.org/10.1159/000519176.
Robertson SE, Leith A, Schmid CH, Dahabreh IJ. Assessing heterogeneity of treatment effects in observational studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(6):1088–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaa235.
https://www.corevitas.com/. Accessed 08 May 2023.
Pinter A, Puig L, Schakel K, et al. Comparative effectiveness of biologics in clinical practice: week 12 primary outcomes from an international observational psoriasis study of health outcomes (PSoHO). J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022;36(11):2087–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.18376.
Blauvelt A, Burge R, Gallo G, et al. A retrospective cohort analysis of treatment patterns over 1 year in patients with psoriasis treated with ixekizumab or guselkumab. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022;12(3):701–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-022-00686-1.
Schmitt-Egenolf M, Freilich J, Stelmaszuk-Zadykowicz NM, Apol E, Hansen JB, Levin LA. Drug persistence of biologic treatments in psoriasis: a Swedish national population study. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021;11(6):2107–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-021-00616-7.
Wu B, Muser E, Teeple A, Pericone CD, Feldman SR. Treatment adherence and persistence of five commonly prescribed medications for moderate to severe psoriasis in a U.S. commercially insured population. J Dermatol Treat. 2021; 32(6):595–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546634.2019.1687828.
Yiu ZZN, Mason KJ, Hampton PJ, et al. Drug survival of adalimumab, ustekinumab and secukinumab in patients with psoriasis: a prospective cohort study from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR). Br J Dermatol. 2020;183(2):294–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18981.
Sbidian E, Mezzarobba M, Weill A, Coste J, Rudant J. Persistence of treatment with biologics for patients with psoriasis: a real-world analysis of 16 545 biologic-naive patients from the French National Health Insurance database (SNIIRAM). Br J Dermatol. 2019;180(1):86–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.16809.
Sruamsiri R, Iwasaki K, Tang W, Mahlich J. Persistence rates and medical costs of biological therapies for psoriasis treatment in Japan: a real-world data study using a claims database. BMC Dermatol. 2018;18(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12895-018-0074-0.
Medical Writing and Editorial Assistance
Medical writing assistance was provided by Gillipsie Minhas, PhD, an employee of Syneos Health, and funded by Eli Lilly and Company.
Funding
This study and Rapid Service Fee were funded by Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, Indiana, USA).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Alyssa Garrelts, William Malatestinic and Meghan Feely were involved in the conception of the work. Alyssa Garrelts and Julie Birt were involved in the design of the work. Alyssa Garrelt was involved in drafting of the work. Andrew Blauvelt, Alyssa Garrelts, William Malatestinic, Julie Birt, Baojin Zhu and Meghan Feely were involved in the interpretation of the data for work as well as the critical revision to the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Andrew Blauvelt has served as a speaker (received honoraria) for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, served as a scientific adviser (received honoraria) for AbbVie, Abcentra, Aclaris, Affibody, Aligos, Almirall, Alumis, Amgen, Anaptysbio, Apogee, Arcutis, Arena, Aslan, Athenex, Bluefin Biomedicine, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, CTI BioPharma, Dermavant, EcoR1, Eli Lilly and Company, Escient, Evelo, Evommune, Forte, Galderma, HighlightII Pharma, Incyte, InnoventBio, Janssen, Landos, Leo, Lipidio, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Rani, Rapt, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Spherix Global Insights, Sun Pharma, Takeda, TLL Pharmaceutical, TrialSpark, UCB Pharma, Union, Ventyx, Vibliome, and Xencor, and has acted as a clinical study investigator (institution has received clinical study funds) for AbbVie, Acelyrin, Allakos, Almirall, Alumis, Amgen, Arcutis, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert, Dermavant, Eli Lilly and Company, Evelo, Evommune, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Leo, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, and Ventyx. Alyssa Garrelts, William Malatestinic, Julie Birt, Baojin Zhu are current employees and shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. Meghan Feely is an associate staff member at Mount Sinai Hospital; is a current employee and shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company; has received consulting, travel, or speaker fees from American Academy of Dermatology, Aerolase, Castle Biosciences, CeraVe-L'Oréal, DREAM USA, Galderma Aesthetics, Glow Recipe, La Roche-Posay-L'Oréal, Revian, Sonoma Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma, and Suneva Medical.
Ethical Approval
This letter is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Blauvelt, A., Garrelts, A., Malatestinic, W. et al. Letter to the Editor: Response to Fitzgerald T et al. Long-Term Psoriasis Control with Guselkumab, Adalimumab, Secukinumab, or Ixekizumab in the USA. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) 13, 2911–2916 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-023-01015-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-023-01015-w