No reason to exclude over 65s from Bio treatments for psoriasis

[Fred]

This study suggests there is no reason to exclude over 65s from Bio's in the treatment of psoriasis.

Quote:

---

Background:
The number elderly patients with psoriasis is steadily increasing in the Western world, nevertheless they are frequently excluded from biologic clinical trials and described as a high‐risk group for adverse events. Thus, there is lack of information concerning safety and effectiveness of available treatments for psoriasis in the elderly, particularly about new biologic systemic drugs.

Objective:
Our aim is to describe our experience with all biological therapies currently used in the elderly (> 65 years) psoriatic patients.

Methods:
A retrospective multicentric review of clinical records of all psoriatic patient aged 65 years or older actually receiving biological drugs (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol, ustekinumab or secukinumab) was undertaken.

Results:
Our study population included 266 elderly psoriatic patients actually receiving any biological therapy (Adalimumab 31,2%, Ustekinumab 28,9%, Etanercept 20,3%, Secukinumab 15%, Infliximab 3%, Golimumab 1%, Certolizumab pegol 0,6%). The PASI score at the baseline (week 0) ranged from 4–54; mean ±SD, 16,5±7,1, which changed after biologic administration to 3,7±8 at week 16, 1,6±2,1 at week 28 and 1,2±2,1 at week 52. Among 266 elderly psoriatic patients 25 adverse events were reported during the observation period. The most frequent events were infections with 12 (48%) reports, followed by malignancies with 4 (16%) reports.

Conclusions:
To date, our study represents the widest experience on the use of biological drugs in elderly psoriatic patients. We found that all biologics for psoriasis showed a great efficacy also in elderly people and the rate and the type of adverse effects were similar to the younger patients. In conclusion the age alone should not limit our therapeutic options. Further observational study using multiple data sources is needed to evaluate long‐term effectiveness and safety for elderly psoriatic patients.

Source: onlinelibrary.wiley.com

*Early view funding unknown

[D Foster]

I AM NOT ELDERLY !!!!!!!!!!!!
I am just knocking on a bit and on Stelara , the problem is that if you are ELDERLY !!!!!!!! the NHS tend to write you off and you don't get a fair crack of the whip when it comes to funding for treatments .
I find it obscene when I hear of some of the ways that we are treated if you are over 65 years old , my GP is not happy about the cost of the Stelara as it effects his budget and effectively he is a private company.
Labour in the late 90s began to dismantle some of the previous Conservative government’s experiments with “marketisation” – ending GP fundholding (under which some family doctors operated budgets on behalf of their patients) and re-emphasising collaboration over competition between different parts of the system. This led to the extraordinary spectacle of a Labour government adopting a policy direction not even the Tories had dared to explore. The NHS had to become so responsive and user-friendly that there would be no incentive for anyone to go elsewhere. In short, it must be able to compete with the private sector – and the way to do that, it seemed, was to make it “compete”.

[D Foster]

A PS to the post, we were told by a relative who is a theatre nurse that when Clare my daughter was on the life support if she had been over 70 they would just have turned it off and not worked to save her, that's what the system has come to.