Exploring Patient Preferences for Systemic Treatments in Psoriasis: A Review of the Literature
Author(s)
Christine Michaels-Igbokwe, BA, PhD1, Ellen M. Janssen, BA, PhD2, Hui Lu, PhD3, Timothy Fitzgerald, PhD, BS, MA4, Anastasia Doldos, MPH3, Oluwakayode Adejoro, MD, MPH, MSc5, Heather Gelhorn, PhD6, Ya-Wen Yang, MD7, Guo Li, MS5.
1Thermo Fisher Scientific, St-Laurent, QC, Canada, 2Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA, 3Thermo Fisher Scientific, London, United Kingdom, 4Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company, Horsham, PA, USA, 5Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, Raritan, NJ, USA, 6Thermo Fisher Scientific, Bethesda, MD, USA, 7Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, Horsham, PA, USA.
1Thermo Fisher Scientific, St-Laurent, QC, Canada, 2Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA, 3Thermo Fisher Scientific, London, United Kingdom, 4Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company, Horsham, PA, USA, 5Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, Raritan, NJ, USA, 6Thermo Fisher Scientific, Bethesda, MD, USA, 7Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, Horsham, PA, USA.
OBJECTIVES: Despite expanding systemic treatment options, many patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis (PsO) experience inadequate symptom control, highlighting an unmet need for additional treatments. This targeted review aimed to identify preference-relevant attributes of systemic PsO treatments.
METHODS: This literature searches focused on studies examining preference for systemic PsO treatments. Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched for publications from 2013 to 2024. References from a prior systematic review were manually reviewed to identify additional articles. Literature screening and data extraction were conducted independently by two analysts.
RESULTS: A total of 523 citations were identified, with 41 studies reviewed in full-text and 20 met inclusion criteria for extraction. Included studies were conducted in Europe (n=8; 40%), North America (n=6; 30%), Asia (n=6; 30%), and Australia (n=1; 5%). Fourteen (70%) studies focused on biologic treatments, while 6 included both biologic and non-biologic treatments. Included studies were conducted among patients (n=13; 65%), physicians (n=4; 20%), or both (n=3; 15%). Benefit attributes included improvement in PASI score (75/90/100) (n=15; 75%), time to treatment response (n=9; 45%), duration of response (n=5; 25%), probability of sustained response (n=5; 25%), change in BSA (n=4; 20%), and symptom improvement (n=4; 20%). Four studies (20%) included PASI improvement at two time points. Risk attributes included infection (n=8; 40%), gastrointestinal issues (n=4; 20%), tuberculosis (n=4; 20%), injection site reactions (n=3; 15%), and long-term cancer risk (n=3; 15%). Non-clinical attributes included dosing frequency (n=17; 85%), mode of administration (n=12; 60%), location of administration (n=8; 40%), and cost (n=8; 40%). Attribute importance varied, few studies investigated preference heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides critical insights into preference-relevant treatment attributes reported in the literature, establishing a strong foundation for understanding patient and physician preferences in PsO management. These findings will inform future research initiatives and support the development of innovative, patient-centered therapeutic approaches.
METHODS: This literature searches focused on studies examining preference for systemic PsO treatments. Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched for publications from 2013 to 2024. References from a prior systematic review were manually reviewed to identify additional articles. Literature screening and data extraction were conducted independently by two analysts.
RESULTS: A total of 523 citations were identified, with 41 studies reviewed in full-text and 20 met inclusion criteria for extraction. Included studies were conducted in Europe (n=8; 40%), North America (n=6; 30%), Asia (n=6; 30%), and Australia (n=1; 5%). Fourteen (70%) studies focused on biologic treatments, while 6 included both biologic and non-biologic treatments. Included studies were conducted among patients (n=13; 65%), physicians (n=4; 20%), or both (n=3; 15%). Benefit attributes included improvement in PASI score (75/90/100) (n=15; 75%), time to treatment response (n=9; 45%), duration of response (n=5; 25%), probability of sustained response (n=5; 25%), change in BSA (n=4; 20%), and symptom improvement (n=4; 20%). Four studies (20%) included PASI improvement at two time points. Risk attributes included infection (n=8; 40%), gastrointestinal issues (n=4; 20%), tuberculosis (n=4; 20%), injection site reactions (n=3; 15%), and long-term cancer risk (n=3; 15%). Non-clinical attributes included dosing frequency (n=17; 85%), mode of administration (n=12; 60%), location of administration (n=8; 40%), and cost (n=8; 40%). Attribute importance varied, few studies investigated preference heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides critical insights into preference-relevant treatment attributes reported in the literature, establishing a strong foundation for understanding patient and physician preferences in PsO management. These findings will inform future research initiatives and support the development of innovative, patient-centered therapeutic approaches.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
PCR59
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Disease
SDC: Systemic Disorders/Conditions (Anesthesia, Auto-Immune Disorders (n.e.c.), Hematological Disorders (non-oncologic), Pain), STA: Biologics & Biosimilars