IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0033486.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Off-Label Biologic Regimens in Psoriasis: A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety of Dose Escalation, Reduction, and Interrupted Biologic Therapy

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth A Brezinski
  • April W Armstrong

Abstract

Objectives: While off-label dosing of biologic treatments may be necessary in selected psoriasis patients, no systematic review exists to date that synthesizes the efficacy and safety of these off-label dosing regimens. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate efficacy and safety of off-label dosing regimens (dose escalation, dose reduction, and interrupted treatment) with etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, and alefacept for psoriasis treatment. Data Sources and Study Selection: We searched OVID Medline from January 1, 1990 through August 1, 2011 for prospective clinical trials that studied biologic therapy for psoriasis treatment in adults. Individual articles were screened for studies that examined escalated, reduced, or interrupted therapy with etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, or alefacept. Data Synthesis: A total of 23 articles with 12,617 patients matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the systematic review. Data were examined for primary and secondary efficacy outcomes and adverse events including infections, malignancies, cardiovascular events, and anti-drug antibodies. The preponderance of data suggests that continuous treatment with anti-TNF agents and anti-IL12/23 agent was necessary for maintenance of disease control. Among non-responders, dose escalation with etanercept, adalimumab, ustekinumab, and alefacept typically resulted in greater efficacy than standard dosing. Dose reduction with etanercept and alefacept resulted in reduced efficacy. Withdrawal of the examined biologics led to an increase in disease activity; efficacy from retreatment did not result in equivalent initial response rates for most biologics. Safety data on off-label dosing regimens are limited. Conclusion: Dose escalation in non-responders generally resulted in increased efficacy in the examined biologics used to treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Continuous treatment with anti-TNF agents and anti-IL12/23 agent results in superior efficacy over interrupted therapy. The decision to use off-label dosing needs to account for both benefits and risks and be individualized to patients' disease severity, quality of life, and existence of comorbidities.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth A Brezinski & April W Armstrong, 2012. "Off-Label Biologic Regimens in Psoriasis: A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety of Dose Escalation, Reduction, and Interrupted Biologic Therapy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(4), pages 1-10, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0033486
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0033486
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0033486&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0033486?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0033486. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.