{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03384731101918014, 'fraction_numerical': 0.040992854456562616, 'mean_word_length': 5.348448687350835, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
CP-080 Comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab in psoriasis patients previously treated with etanercept

Background Adalimumab and ustekinumab have demonstrated a high level of efficacy in the treatment of moderate-severe psoriasis in randomised controlled trials. There are, however, no data available on the comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab in psoriasis patients switching from etanercept. Purpose To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of adalimumab and ustekinumab in patients previously treated with etanercept. Material and methods A single centre, retrospective, observational, comparative study was carried out from 1 November 2011 to 31 March 2013, with a follow-up of 2 years. Subjects were patients with moderate-severe psoriasis that after etanercept therapy were treated with adalimumab or ustekinumab. A revision of each patient’s clinical history was carried out to asses clinical data. The primary analysis compared the percentages of patients in each treatment group who achieved ≥75% improvement from baseline PASI score (PASI 75) at week 12. Secondary endpoints included the percentages of patients with PASI 75 at week 96. Statistical analysis was performed with the SPSS 22 software. Results 28 psoriasis patients were included: 11 (39.3%) patients received adalimumab and 17 (60.7%) received ustekinumab as secondline therapy. Median age in the adalimumab and ustekinumab groups were 58 (SD 6.5) years and 49 years (SD 16.3), respectively (p = 00.08). After 12 weeks of study treatment, 76.5% of ustekinumab treated patients (13/17) achieved a PASI 75 response compared with 36.4% (4/11) in the adalimumab group (p = 0.034). At week 96, more patients had a PASI 75 in the ustekinumab group compared with the adalimumab group, but the difference was not statistically significant (70.6% vs 36.4%, p = 0.07). Conclusion Previously studies have shown that adalimumab and ustekinumab are effective after anti-TNF inhibitor therapy. However, to our knowledge, the present study is the first to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab in psoriasis patients switching from etanercept. Our study suggests that ustekinumab is associated with a higher effectiveness compared with adalimumab as secondline treatment in patients previously treated with etanercept. Prospective, randomised studies with a large number of patients are required to establish the optimal treatment in psoriasis patients who have previously received etanercept. References and/or Acknowledgements J Dermatolog Treat 2015;26:217-22 J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2011;25:1037-40 No conflict of interest.