Disease Control for Patients with Psoriasis Receiving Continuous Versus Interrupted Therapy with Adalimumab or Etanercept: A Clinical Practice Study

Background

Studies analyzing the efficacy and safety of interrupted psoriasis therapy with biologic drugs have not reported clear benefits in routine clinical practice.

Objectives

To identify differences in the disease control of psoriasis patients undergoing continuous or interrupted therapy with adalimumab or etanercept.

Methods

This retrospective 3-year cohort study (interrupted vs. continuous therapy) involved 77 patients (47 adalimumab, 30 etanercept) who were managed under clinical practice conditions. The proportion of episodes with a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) ≥3 during the follow-up in each study cohort was the primary effectiveness endpoint. The relative risk of PGA ≥3 episodes in the interrupted therapy cohort was analyzed.

Results

Twenty-one patients receiving adalimumab were included in the interrupted therapy cohort (44.7 %), and 26 were included in the continuous therapy cohort (55.3 %). In the group of etanercept, 21 patients received continuous treatment (70.0 %), and nine patients started at least one interruption period (30.0 %). The proportion of PGA ≥3 episodes in continuous and interrupted groups were 19.2 % vs. 33.3 % for adalimumab patients (p = 0.27), and 42.9 % vs. 55.6 % in patients treated with etanercept (p = 0.52). The relative risk of PGA ≥3 episodes with interrupted therapy was 1.73 (95 % confidence interval 0.64–4.68; p = 0.27), and 1.30 (95 % confidence interval 0.60–2.79; p = 0.52) in the adalimumab and etanercept groups, respectively.

Conclusion

In routine clinical practice, interrupted therapy with adalimumab or etanercept can provide adequate disease control for a subgroup of patients with excellent response to biologic drugs.