The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of drug survival rates for adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab in patients with psoriasis vulgaris: Adherence to treatment with biologics in patients with psoriasis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adherence to treatment is an indicator of treatment success. Long-term data on adherence to biologic treatment in psoriasis are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To compare the tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors regarding drug survival rate and safety in patients with psoriasis. METHODS: This study is based on data from the Danish nationwide database DERMBIO covering patients with psoriasis treated with a biologic agent. All patients who received anti-TNF-α treatment in academic referral centres were included. Baseline data, adverse events, time on treatment and reason for stopping treatment were recorded. Hazard ratios (HRs) for factors determining drug survival were calculated by logistic regression. RESULTS: In total, 882 treatment series with etanercept (n = 311), adalimumab (n = 427) or infliximab (n = 144) were administered to 747 patients. Significant predictors of drug survival were: sex, the anti-TNF-α agent and the previous response to an anti-TNF-α agent. In the group of anti-TNF-α-naïve patients the longest drug survival was observed for infliximab, followed by adalimumab [HR vs. infliximab 3·70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·99-6·89] and etanercept (HR vs. infliximab 3·18, 95% CI 1·72-5·86). The 4-year drug survival is in the range of 40% for etanercept or adalimumab vs. 70% for infliximab. There was no difference in number of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The overall efficacy of anti-TNF-α drugs diminishes with time, as envisaged by the progressive loss of patient adherence to treatment. The major reasons for stopping treatment were loss of efficacy, followed by adverse events. Infliximab had the best patient retention ability, with 70% of patients still being on the drug after 4 years of treatment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Interventions to Enhance Patient Adherence to Medication Prescriptions: Scientific Review
McDonald, H. P., Garg, A. X., & Haynes, R. B. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.22.2868 · Cited by 1,176
Cited by
Egeberg, A., Ottosen, M. B., Gniadecki, R., Broesby-Olsen, S., Dam, T. N., Bryld, L. E., Rasmussen, M. K., & Skov, L. (2018) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/bjd.16102 · Cited by 284
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Gniadecki, R., Kragballe, K., Dam, T. N., & Skov, L.
- Venue
- British Journal of Dermatology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-04-11
- Volume
- 164
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1091-1096
- ISSN
- 0007-0963 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2145492843
- Cited by
- 248
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of drug survival rates for adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab in patients with psoriasis vulgaris: Adherence to treatment with biologics in patients with psoriasis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10213.x
- The paper
- Gniadecki, R., Kragballe, K., Dam, T. N., & Skov, L. (2011). Comparison of drug survival rates for adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab in patients with psoriasis vulgaris: Adherence to treatment with biologics in patients with psoriasis. British Journal of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10213.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.