@article{KirstenOhmGehrdauetal.2022,
  author    = {Kirsten, Natalia and Ohm, Frenz and Gehrdau, Kathrin and Girbig, Gefion and Stephan, Brigitte and Ben-Anaya, Nesrine and Pinter, Andreas and Bechara, Falk G. and Presser, Dagmar and Zouboulis, Christos C. and Augustin, Matthias},
  title     = {Switching from adalimumab originator to biosimilar in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa results in losses of response — data from the German HS registry HSBest},
  series = {Life},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Life},
  number    = {10},
  issn      = {2075-1729},
  doi       = {10.3390/life12101518},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-288213},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Since 2021, adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501 can be used alternatively to adalimumab originator (ADAO) in the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Effectiveness and safety data remain scarce. We investigated the impact of switching from ADAO to ABP 501 on disease severity and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) in patients with HS. We analyzed clinical data on patients enrolled in the German HSBest registry. Evaluation outcomes were assessed at three time points (baseline of originator (t0), prior to switching to biosimilar (t1) and 12 to 14 weeks after switching (t2)) and included patient-reported AEs and disease severity using the International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System (IHS4) score. In total, 94 patients were switched from ADAO to ABP 501. Overall, 33.3\% (n = 31/94) of the patients developed AEs and/or loss of response (LoR) within 12 to 14 weeks after switching. Of these, 61.3\% (n = 19/31) experienced LoR but no AEs, 22.6\% (n = 7/31) LoR combined with AEs and 16.1\% (n = 5/31) AEs only. Our study showed that switching HS patients from ADAO to ABP 501 does significantly affect treatment effectiveness. Switching patients who are on remission maintenance therapy should be viewed critically.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SteinkePeitschLudwigetal.2013,
  author    = {Steinke, Sabine I. B. and Peitsch, Wiebke K. and Ludwig, Alexander and Goebeler, Matthias},
  title     = {Cost-of-Illness in Psoriasis: Comparing Inpatient and Outpatient Therapy},
  series = {PLOS ONE},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {PLOS ONE},
  number    = {10},
  issn      = {1932-6203},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0078152},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-128235},
  pages     = {e78152},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Treatment modalities of chronic plaque psoriasis have dramatically changed over the past ten years with a still continuing shift from inpatient to outpatient treatment. This development is mainly caused by outpatient availability of highly efficient and relatively well-tolerated systemic treatments, in particular BioLogicals. In addition, inpatient treatment is time-and cost-intense, conflicting with the actual burst of health expenses and with patient preferences. Nevertheless, inpatient treatment with dithranol and UV light still is a major mainstay of psoriasis treatment in Germany. The current study aims at comparing the total costs of inpatient treatment and outpatient follow-up to mere outpatient therapy with different modalities (topical treatment, phototherapy, classic systemic therapy or BioLogicals) over a period of 12 months. To this end, a retrospective cost-of-illness study was conducted on 120 patients treated at the University Medical Centre Mannheim between 2005 and 2006. Inpatient therapy caused significantly higher direct medical, indirect and total annual costs than outpatient treatment (13,042 (sic) versus 2,984 (sic)). Its strong influence on cost levels was confirmed by regression analysis, with total costs rising by 104.3\% in case of inpatient treatment. Patients receiving BioLogicals produced the overall highest costs, whereas outpatient treatment with classic systemic antipsoriatic medications was less cost-intense than other alternatives.},
  language  = {en}
}