ArticleThe British journal of dermatology2019
A standardization approach to compare treatment safety and effectiveness outcomes between clinical trials and real-world populations in psoriasis.
Article in The British journal of dermatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Drug Survival of IL-17 and IL-23 Inhibitors for Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Drugs · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical Trial Generalizability Assessment in the Big Data Era: A Review.Clinical and translational science · 2020Pooled it
- Comparative Real-World Analysis of Baseline Demographic Characteristics and Comorbidities in Atopic Dermatitis Patients Initiating Biologics Versus JAK Inhibitors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparative real-world effectiveness and safety of biologics and JAK inhibitors in atopic dermatitis: short- and medium-to-long-term analysis from a regional healthcare network in southern Spain.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Demographics, Disease Characteristics, and Time to Effective Treatment of Patients with Psoriasis in the Ghent PsoPlus Cohort of 2021.Dermatology and therapy · 2024Article
- PsABIOnd Study and eDaily Substudy Design: Long-Term Effectiveness and Safety of Guselkumab and IL-17 Inhibitors in Routine Clinical Practice in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis.Rheumatology and therapy · 2023Article
- Observational
- Article
- Cardiovascular Safety of Biologics Targeting Interleukin (IL)-12 and/or IL-23: What Does the Evidence Say?American journal of clinical dermatology · 2021Review
- Comparison of Clinical Characteristics Between Clinical Trial Participants and Nonparticipants Using Electronic Health Record Data.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Comparative risk of serious infections among real-world users of biologics for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2020Article
- Learning from disease registries during a pandemic: Moving toward an international federation of patient registries.Clinics in dermatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients recruited in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for biologic therapies in psoriasis are not fully representative of the real-world psoriasis population.
objectivesFirstly, to investigate whether patient characteristics are associated with being included in a psoriasis RCT. Secondly, to estimate the differences in the incidence of severe adverse events (SAEs) and the response rate between RCT and real-world populations of patients on biologic therapies for psoriasis using a standardization method.
methodsData from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) were appended to individual participant-level data from two RCTs assessing ustekinumab in patients with psoriasis. Baseline variables were assessed for association of being in an RCT using a multivariable logistic regression model. Propensity score weights were derived to reweigh the registry population so that variables had the distribution of the trial population. We measured the C-statistic of the model with trial status as the dependent variable, and the risk differences in the incidence rate of SAEs in the first year and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) after 6 months in the BADBIR cohort before and after weighting.
resultsIn total 6790 registry and 2021 RCT participants were included. The multivariable logistic regression model had a C-statistic of 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-0.83]. The risk differences for the incidence rate of SAEs and the proportion of patients with PASI < 1.5 were 9.27 (95% CI -3.91-22.5) per 1000 person-years and 0.95 (95% CI -1.98-4.15), respectively.
conclusionsOur results suggest that RCTs of biologic therapies in patients with psoriasis are not fully representative of the real-world population, but this lack of external validity does not account for the efficacy-effectiveness gap. What's already known about this topic? Patients with psoriasis who would not be eligible for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating biologic therapies have a greater risk of serious adverse events and lower treatment effectiveness than patients who would have been eligible. What does this study add? Baseline patient characteristics were shown to be predictive of whether a patient would have been eligible for enrolment in an RCT for psoriasis biologic therapy. We did not find any efficacy-effectiveness gap between the sample representative of the real-world population of patients with psoriasis and the sample representative of the RCT population. Factors outside of baseline patient characteristics, such as observer effect and higher adherence in RCTs, may be more influential in any efficacy-effectiveness gap between trial and real-world populations of patients with psoriasis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.