Taltz 5 year study
#11
(Sat-03-02-2024, 14:35 PM)Kat Wrote: Smile

I agree with Mataribot though, still doesn't sound like a great result.

I think this is an interesting subject. So I did some research and therefore I do not agree with Matarbot.

the research I found comes from a meta analysis done in 2018, found on pub med.

Quote: “ The drug survival for all biologics decreased with time, dropping from 66% at year 1 to 41% at year 4 for etanercept, from 69% to 47% for adalimumab, from 61% to 42% for infliximab, and from 82% to 56% for ustekinumab. Ustekinumab was associated with the highest drug survival in all and biologic-naïve subjects.”

So in fact a drug-survival rate of 2/3 = 66% Is quite average, even on the better side.
Reply
#12
(Sat-03-02-2024, 21:37 PM)Caroline Wrote:
(Sat-03-02-2024, 14:35 PM)Kat Wrote: Smile

I agree with Mataribot though, still doesn't sound like a great result.

I think this is an interesting subject. So I did some research and therefore I do not agree with Matarbot.

the research I found comes from a meta analysis done in 2018, found on pub med.

Quote: “ The drug survival for all biologics decreased with time, dropping from 66% at year 1 to 41% at year 4 for etanercept, from 69% to 47% for adalimumab, from 61% to 42% for infliximab, and from 82% to 56% for ustekinumab. Ustekinumab was associated with the highest drug survival in all and biologic-naïve subjects.”

So in fact a drug-survival rate of 2/3 = 66% Is quite average, even on the better side.

I am going to eat my words on this one and completely agree. A 2/3 survival rate is in line with other biological therapies and significantly better than older treatments. In conclusion, I think there is room for significant improvement in the long term viability of treatments.
Reply
#13
(Tue-06-02-2024, 04:16 AM)mataribot Wrote:
(Sat-03-02-2024, 21:37 PM)Caroline Wrote:
(Sat-03-02-2024, 14:35 PM)Kat Wrote: Smile

I agree with Mataribot though, still doesn't sound like a great result.

I think this is an interesting subject. So I did some research and therefore I do not agree with Matarbot.

the research I found comes from a meta analysis done in 2018, found on pub med.

Quote: “ The drug survival for all biologics decreased with time, dropping from 66% at year 1 to 41% at year 4 for etanercept, from 69% to 47% for adalimumab, from 61% to 42% for infliximab, and from 82% to 56% for ustekinumab. Ustekinumab was associated with the highest drug survival in all and biologic-naïve subjects.”

So in fact a drug-survival rate of 2/3 = 66% Is quite average, even on the better side.

I am going to eat my words on this one and completely agree. A 2/3 survival rate is in line with other biological therapies and significantly better than older treatments. In conclusion, I think there is room for significant improvement in the long term viability of treatments.

Now. I agree with you Mataribot Smile Smile
Reply
#14
I agree there's room for improvement as average isn't good enough.  Tongue
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Taltz & Zepbound in adults with psoriasis and obesity Fred 0 547 Tue-13-10-2026, 14:18 PM
Last Post: Fred
  Icotyde for psoriasis 1 year findings Fred 1 1,726 Sun-24-05-2026, 13:31 PM
Last Post: Caroline
  Taltz and Zepbound Phase 3b for psoriatic arhtritis Fred 1 1,704 Sat-10-01-2026, 21:20 PM
Last Post: Caroline
  Cosentyx 9 year psoriasis patient study Fred 0 2,498 Sun-25-05-2025, 11:07 AM
Last Post: Fred
  Ilumya/Ilumetri 1 year review of psoriasis & qulity of life Fred 0 2,027 Thu-20-03-2025, 14:19 PM
Last Post: Fred



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)