Acceptability of 'as needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis: insights from a multi-stakeholder mixed methods study

David Gleeson; Maneeha Naveed; Lucy Moorhead; Helen McAteer; Georgia Sewell; Arlene McGuire; John Weinman; Jonathan N W N Barker; Sam Norton; Sarah C E Chapman; Catherine H Smith; Satveer K Mahil

doi:10.1093/bjd/ljae068

Acceptability of 'as needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis: insights from a multi-stakeholder mixed methods study

David Gleeson, Maneeha Naveed, Lucy Moorhead, Helen McAteer, Georgia Sewell, Arlene McGuire, John Weinman, Jonathan N W N Barker, Sam Norton, Sarah C E Chapman, Catherine H Smith, Satveer K Mahil

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Biologic therapies have led to increasing numbers of patients with psoriasis who have clear or nearly clear skin. It is current practice to continue biologic therapy indefinitely in these patients, which contributes to a substantial long-term drug and healthcare burden. 'As needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis may address this; however, our understanding of patient and clinician perceptions of this strategy is limited. Objectives: The aim of this mixed-methods study was to gain insight into the perspectives of both patients and clinicians regarding the acceptability of an 'as needed' approach to biologic therapy in psoriasis, including potential barriers and enablers to implementation in routine care. Methods: We first conducted UK-wide online scoping surveys of patients with psoriasis and dermatology clinicians to explore their views on 'as needed' biologic therapy. Using topic guides informed by these survey findings, we then carried out qualitative focus groups with patients and clinicians. Themes were identified using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Of 67 patients and 27 clinicians completing the scoping surveys, 67% (43 of 64 patients) and 78% (21 of 27 clinicians) supported the use of 'as needed' biologic therapy, respectively. Respondents highlighted advantages such as a reduction in healthcare burden and greater ownership of care. Challenges included logistics of 'as needed' drug provision and potential risks of disease flare and drug immunogenicity. Focus groups comprised 15 patients with psoriasis [9 female patients (60%), average disease duration 32 years (range 9-64)] and 9 dermatology clinicians [8 female clinicians (89%), average dermatology experience 20 years (range 8-33)]. Both patients and clinicians felt that an 'as needed' treatment approach will deliver a reduction in treatment burden and present an opportunity for patient-led ownership of care. Both groups highlighted the importance of ensuring ongoing access to medication and discussing the potential impact of psoriasis recurrence. Patient preferences were influenced by their lived experiences, particularly previous difficulties with medication delivery logistics and establishing disease control. Clinician perspectives were informed by personal experience of their patients adapting their own dosing schedules. Clinicians highlighted the importance of targeted patient selection for an 'as needed' approach, ongoing disease monitoring, and prompt reaccess to medications upon psoriasis recurrence. Conclusions: These data indicate that 'as needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis is acceptable for both patients and clinicians. Formal assessment of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is warranted to enable the real-world potential of this approach to be realized.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	243-251
Number of pages	9
Journal	The British journal of dermatology
Volume	191
Issue number	2
Early online date	17 Feb 2024
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljae068
Publication status	Published - Aug 2024

Access to Document

10.1093/bjd/ljae068Licence: CC BY

Cite this

Gleeson, D., Naveed, M., Moorhead, L., McAteer, H., Sewell, G., McGuire, A., Weinman, J., Barker, J. N. W. N., Norton, S., Chapman, S. C. E., Smith, C. H., & Mahil, S. K. (2024). Acceptability of 'as needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis: insights from a multi-stakeholder mixed methods study. The British journal of dermatology, 191(2), 243-251. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljae068

@article{fac7f9a5af914e459823a03203b76666,

title = "Acceptability of 'as needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis: insights from a multi-stakeholder mixed methods study",

abstract = "Background: Biologic therapies have led to increasing numbers of patients with psoriasis who have clear or nearly clear skin. It is current practice to continue biologic therapy indefinitely in these patients, which contributes to a substantial long-term drug and healthcare burden. 'As needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis may address this; however, our understanding of patient and clinician perceptions of this strategy is limited. Objectives: The aim of this mixed-methods study was to gain insight into the perspectives of both patients and clinicians regarding the acceptability of an 'as needed' approach to biologic therapy in psoriasis, including potential barriers and enablers to implementation in routine care. Methods: We first conducted UK-wide online scoping surveys of patients with psoriasis and dermatology clinicians to explore their views on 'as needed' biologic therapy. Using topic guides informed by these survey findings, we then carried out qualitative focus groups with patients and clinicians. Themes were identified using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Of 67 patients and 27 clinicians completing the scoping surveys, 67% (43 of 64 patients) and 78% (21 of 27 clinicians) supported the use of 'as needed' biologic therapy, respectively. Respondents highlighted advantages such as a reduction in healthcare burden and greater ownership of care. Challenges included logistics of 'as needed' drug provision and potential risks of disease flare and drug immunogenicity. Focus groups comprised 15 patients with psoriasis [9 female patients (60%), average disease duration 32 years (range 9-64)] and 9 dermatology clinicians [8 female clinicians (89%), average dermatology experience 20 years (range 8-33)]. Both patients and clinicians felt that an 'as needed' treatment approach will deliver a reduction in treatment burden and present an opportunity for patient-led ownership of care. Both groups highlighted the importance of ensuring ongoing access to medication and discussing the potential impact of psoriasis recurrence. Patient preferences were influenced by their lived experiences, particularly previous difficulties with medication delivery logistics and establishing disease control. Clinician perspectives were informed by personal experience of their patients adapting their own dosing schedules. Clinicians highlighted the importance of targeted patient selection for an 'as needed' approach, ongoing disease monitoring, and prompt reaccess to medications upon psoriasis recurrence. Conclusions: These data indicate that 'as needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis is acceptable for both patients and clinicians. Formal assessment of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is warranted to enable the real-world potential of this approach to be realized.",

author = "David Gleeson and Maneeha Naveed and Lucy Moorhead and Helen McAteer and Georgia Sewell and Arlene McGuire and John Weinman and Barker, {Jonathan N W N} and Sam Norton and Chapman, {Sarah C E} and Smith, {Catherine H} and Mahil, {Satveer K}",

note = "{\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.",

year = "2024",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1093/bjd/ljae068",

language = "English",

volume = "191",

pages = "243--251",

journal = "The British journal of dermatology",

issn = "0007-0963",

publisher = "John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111)",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Acceptability of 'as needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis

T2 - insights from a multi-stakeholder mixed methods study

AU - Gleeson, David

AU - Naveed, Maneeha

AU - Moorhead, Lucy

AU - McAteer, Helen

AU - Sewell, Georgia

AU - McGuire, Arlene

AU - Weinman, John

AU - Barker, Jonathan N W N

AU - Norton, Sam

AU - Chapman, Sarah C E

AU - Smith, Catherine H

AU - Mahil, Satveer K

PY - 2024/8

Y1 - 2024/8

N2 - Background: Biologic therapies have led to increasing numbers of patients with psoriasis who have clear or nearly clear skin. It is current practice to continue biologic therapy indefinitely in these patients, which contributes to a substantial long-term drug and healthcare burden. 'As needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis may address this; however, our understanding of patient and clinician perceptions of this strategy is limited. Objectives: The aim of this mixed-methods study was to gain insight into the perspectives of both patients and clinicians regarding the acceptability of an 'as needed' approach to biologic therapy in psoriasis, including potential barriers and enablers to implementation in routine care. Methods: We first conducted UK-wide online scoping surveys of patients with psoriasis and dermatology clinicians to explore their views on 'as needed' biologic therapy. Using topic guides informed by these survey findings, we then carried out qualitative focus groups with patients and clinicians. Themes were identified using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Of 67 patients and 27 clinicians completing the scoping surveys, 67% (43 of 64 patients) and 78% (21 of 27 clinicians) supported the use of 'as needed' biologic therapy, respectively. Respondents highlighted advantages such as a reduction in healthcare burden and greater ownership of care. Challenges included logistics of 'as needed' drug provision and potential risks of disease flare and drug immunogenicity. Focus groups comprised 15 patients with psoriasis [9 female patients (60%), average disease duration 32 years (range 9-64)] and 9 dermatology clinicians [8 female clinicians (89%), average dermatology experience 20 years (range 8-33)]. Both patients and clinicians felt that an 'as needed' treatment approach will deliver a reduction in treatment burden and present an opportunity for patient-led ownership of care. Both groups highlighted the importance of ensuring ongoing access to medication and discussing the potential impact of psoriasis recurrence. Patient preferences were influenced by their lived experiences, particularly previous difficulties with medication delivery logistics and establishing disease control. Clinician perspectives were informed by personal experience of their patients adapting their own dosing schedules. Clinicians highlighted the importance of targeted patient selection for an 'as needed' approach, ongoing disease monitoring, and prompt reaccess to medications upon psoriasis recurrence. Conclusions: These data indicate that 'as needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis is acceptable for both patients and clinicians. Formal assessment of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is warranted to enable the real-world potential of this approach to be realized.

AB - Background: Biologic therapies have led to increasing numbers of patients with psoriasis who have clear or nearly clear skin. It is current practice to continue biologic therapy indefinitely in these patients, which contributes to a substantial long-term drug and healthcare burden. 'As needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis may address this; however, our understanding of patient and clinician perceptions of this strategy is limited. Objectives: The aim of this mixed-methods study was to gain insight into the perspectives of both patients and clinicians regarding the acceptability of an 'as needed' approach to biologic therapy in psoriasis, including potential barriers and enablers to implementation in routine care. Methods: We first conducted UK-wide online scoping surveys of patients with psoriasis and dermatology clinicians to explore their views on 'as needed' biologic therapy. Using topic guides informed by these survey findings, we then carried out qualitative focus groups with patients and clinicians. Themes were identified using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Of 67 patients and 27 clinicians completing the scoping surveys, 67% (43 of 64 patients) and 78% (21 of 27 clinicians) supported the use of 'as needed' biologic therapy, respectively. Respondents highlighted advantages such as a reduction in healthcare burden and greater ownership of care. Challenges included logistics of 'as needed' drug provision and potential risks of disease flare and drug immunogenicity. Focus groups comprised 15 patients with psoriasis [9 female patients (60%), average disease duration 32 years (range 9-64)] and 9 dermatology clinicians [8 female clinicians (89%), average dermatology experience 20 years (range 8-33)]. Both patients and clinicians felt that an 'as needed' treatment approach will deliver a reduction in treatment burden and present an opportunity for patient-led ownership of care. Both groups highlighted the importance of ensuring ongoing access to medication and discussing the potential impact of psoriasis recurrence. Patient preferences were influenced by their lived experiences, particularly previous difficulties with medication delivery logistics and establishing disease control. Clinician perspectives were informed by personal experience of their patients adapting their own dosing schedules. Clinicians highlighted the importance of targeted patient selection for an 'as needed' approach, ongoing disease monitoring, and prompt reaccess to medications upon psoriasis recurrence. Conclusions: These data indicate that 'as needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis is acceptable for both patients and clinicians. Formal assessment of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is warranted to enable the real-world potential of this approach to be realized.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85198384997&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/bjd/ljae068

DO - 10.1093/bjd/ljae068

M3 - Article

C2 - 38366988

SN - 0007-0963

VL - 191

SP - 243

EP - 251

JO - The British journal of dermatology

JF - The British journal of dermatology

IS - 2

ER -

Acceptability of 'as needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis: insights from a multi-stakeholder mixed methods study

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this