Risk of adverse events in psoriasis patients receiving classic systemic drugs and biologics in a 5-year observational study of clinical practice: 2008-2013 results of the Biobadaderm registry

BACKGROUND

Biobadaderm is the Spanish registry of psoriasis patients receiving systemic treatment in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety of biologics and classic systemic treatment.

METHODS

Prospective cohort of patients receiving biologics and classic systemic therapies between 2008 and 2013 in 12 hospitals are included. We registered demographic data, diagnoses, comorbidities, treatments and adverse events (AE). We obtained raw relative risks (RR) for specific AE. Multivariate analysis consisted of Cox models adjusting for age, gender, chronic hepatic disease and previous cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 1030 patients received biologics (2061 AE in 3681 person-years), 926 patients classic systemic drugs (1015 AE in 1517 person-years). Ninety-three per cent of AE in both groups were non-serious, 6% serious and 0.003% fatal. The age- and gender-adjusted hazard ratio of AE was lower in the biologics group [hazard ratio 0.6 (95% CI: 0.5-0.7)].We found no differences in rates of serious and mortal AE. Some system organ class AE rates differed between both groups. As limitations: Prescription bias might affect the incidence of AE in both groups. Association of drug and AE was based on timing: associations might not be causal.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving biologics had lower risk of AE. We did not find differences in the risk of serious or fatal AE.

The use of systematic reviews in clinical trials and narrative reviews in dermatology: is the best evidence being used?

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Systematic reviews -the most comprehensive type of literature review-should be taken into account before a clinical trial or a narrative review on a topic is undertaken. The objective of this study was to describe the use of systematic reviews in clinical trials and narrative reviews in dermatology.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a descriptive cross-sectional study. We selected randomized clinical trials and narrative reviews from the dermatological clinical research journals identified as most important (according to impact factor) and from Actas Dermosifiliográficas, and studied the bibliographies to ascertain whether the authors made reference to existing systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews.

RESULTS

Of the 72 clinical trials for which a systematic review was available, 24 (33.3%) cited at least 1 review; reference was made to relevant Cochrane reviews in 15.6% of cases and to non-Cochrane reviews in 32%. In the case of the 24 narrative reviews for which a review was available, 10 (41.7%) cited at least 1 review; Cochrane reviews were cited in 20% and non-Cochrane reviews in 35.3%.In the case of Actas Dermosifiliográficas, very few clinical trials were found and the findings for narrative review articles were similar to those observed for the other journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic reviews are not often taken into account by the authors of clinical trials and narrative reviews and this may lead to redundant studies and publications. Authors appear to use Cochrane reviews even less than non-Cochrane reviews and are therefore ignoring one of the main sources of available evidence.

[Who funds research by Spanish dermatologists? Comparative analysis of articles published in 2008]

BACKGROUND

References have been made in the literature to the funding of clinical trials by the pharmaceutical industry. Other types of funding, however, have been less well studied.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the sources of funding for research by Spanish dermatology departments published in 2008.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A bibliometric study was performed of the research articles published by Spanish, French, and British dermatology departments and by Spanish rheumatology departments in 2008 according to MEDLINE records.

RESULTS

Articles published by Spanish dermatology departments received funding in 36.4% of cases. This percentage is lower than that found for the other groups studied and remained low for all different types of funding. Statistically significant relationships were found between a higher percentage of funding and a higher level of evidence, as well as between a higher level of funding by the pharmaceutical industry and the publication of research into quality of life and pharmacological treatment. Inadequate declaration of funding was observed in 57.1% of articles from Spanish dermatology departments and the role of the sponsor was not declared in any article. Similar findings were obtained for the other groups studied.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of research articles published by Spanish dermatology departments that receive external funding is low, and this is associated with a lower level of scientific evidence. In order to obtain more external funding, we must improve our competitiveness.

[Quinacrine in the treatment of cutaneous lupus erythematosus: practical aspects and a case series]

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are antimalarials used as first-line treatment of cutaneous lupus. Quinacrine is not often employed by Spanish physicians due to a lack of information about its use and the fact that it is not marketed in Spain. It is effective in monotherapy or in combination therapy with other antimalarials. One of the advantages of quinacrine over chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine is that it does not appear to cause retinal toxicity. Quinacrine is used as second-line therapy in patients with pre-existing eye problems that contraindicate treatment with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine (after evaluation of which drug has the better risk-benefit relationship), and in combination therapy with other antimalarials inpatients with resistance or only a partial response to chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. We report 8 cases of patients with cutaneous lupus who received treatment with quinacrine in monotherapy or in combination with others antimalarials. Lesions resolved in 5 patients and improved in 3. Therapy had to be withdrawn in 1 patient due to an exacerbation of his psoriasis.

[Introduction to clinical research in dermatology: the link between clinical practice and research]

Clinical research involves studying patients with a view to improving their care. It enhances the health system, benefits both patients and physicians, and represents the "natural" form of investigation for physicians. It can be conducted at both large and small sites. On initiating a line of research, a specific question should be formulated in terms of PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome). Each of these components should be precisely defined.The question will subsequently be assessed using the FINER mnemonic (that is, whether it is feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant). If shortcomings are detected, the research question can be refined or rejected directly. When we have an appropriate question,the next step will be to write our protocol with the assistance of someone trained in clinical research methodology.