Tue-06-02-2024, 08:54 AM
(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:
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