Treatment Patterns and Negative Health Outcomes in Palmoplantar Pustulosis Patients in Germany and the US

Alvan Cheng; Xinqing Deng; Fang Yang; Cici Liu; David Neasham; Thomas Kilcoyne; Michael Duxbury; Myriam Cordey; Boni E Elewski

doi:10.1007/s13555-024-01109-z

Treatment Patterns and Negative Health Outcomes in Palmoplantar Pustulosis Patients in Germany and the US

Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2024 Mar;14(3):627-641. doi: 10.1007/s13555-024-01109-z. Epub 2024 Mar 5.

Authors

Alvan Cheng¹, Xinqing Deng², Fang Yang², Cici Liu², David Neasham³, Thomas Kilcoyne⁴, Michael Duxbury⁵, Myriam Cordey⁶, Boni E Elewski⁷

Affiliations

¹ Center for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. acheng02@amgen.com.
² SimulStat Inc., Solana Beach, CA, USA.
³ Center for Observational Research, Amgen, Ltd, Uxbridge, UK.
⁴ Hobson Prior, Tunbridge Wells, UK.
⁵ Kelly Services, Inc., Kingston, UK.
⁶ Center for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
⁷ Department of Dermatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Abstract

Introduction: Limited information exists on the epidemiology, treatment, and burden of palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) and defining the optimal course of treatment remains challenging without approved targeted treatments in most countries. Here, we describe the clinical and demographic characteristics, treatments received, and negative health outcomes experienced among patients with PPP in the United States (US) and Germany.

Methods: Retrospective cohort study between 2016 and 2021 using data from the US Merative™ MarketScan® Research Database and IQVIA™ German Disease Analyzer. Adult patients with PPP (ICD-10-CM L40.3) were followed from the date of their first qualifying PPP diagnosis and continued until the earlier of disenrollment or end date of database, during which treatment patterns and incidence rates of negative health outcomes were assessed. Treatment patterns included adherence, non-persistence, discontinuation, re-initiation, switching, and combination therapy.

Results: The prevalence of PPP was 0.005% and 0.065% in the MarketScan database and German Disease Analyzer, respectively, with 1629 and 3866 patients meeting the inclusion criteria. Most patients were female (71.3%, 67.8%), with mean (SD) age of 54.1 (11.7) and 56.9 (14.3) years, respectively. One year post index, most patients received topical treatment (77.4%, 65.3%), but non-persistence and discontinuation were high. Oral and biologic treatments displayed higher levels of adherence, particularly apremilast and tofacitinib among oral treatments and TNF inhibitors and IL-23 inhibitors among biologics. Rates of negative health outcomes were higher among patients not receiving treatment post-index compared with those receiving treatment post-index across both databases, regardless of prior treatment history.

Conclusions: Establishing treatment guidelines remains an unmet need for patients with PPP and could improve quality of life by reducing the occurrence of negative health outcomes. The findings from this study may provide insight into the effectiveness of current treatment options for patients with PPP and can be leveraged to support the development of treatment guidelines.

Keywords: Burden; Healthcare utilization; Outcomes; Palmoplantar pustulosis; Psoriasis; Treatment patterns.