TY - JOUR
T1 - An assessment of current practices in the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa
T2 - the rise of biologic therapy
AU - Muddasani, Suraj
AU - Flood, Kelsey S.
AU - Fleischer, Alan B.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Introduction: Treatments for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) have changed in the last decade. In this context, we studied how management practices have shifted. Methods: We analyzed the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2010 to 2016 to assess current treatment practices for HS. Results: There were 1.78 (95% confidence interval 1.35, 2.22) million visits. Antibiotics were observed at 55.7% of visits and observations remained stable over time (p =.9, odds ratio 0.99 [0.73, 1.3]). Pain medications were observed at 15.5% of visits and observations remained stable over time (p =.4, odds ratio [0.87 [0.61, 1.2]). Biologic agents were observed at 0.9% of visits and observations remained stable over time (p =.4, odds ratio 0.61 [0.21, 1.7]). Systemic immunomodulators were observed at 2.6% of visits and observations remained stable over time (p =.08, odds ratio 0.42 [0.12, 1.1]). 100% of biologic agents and 88% of systemic immunomodulators were prescribed by dermatologists. Discussion: The use of biologic agents did not increase in this interval, but it is higher than in an earlier assessment of the NAMCS. Nearly all systemic immunomodulators are prescribed by dermatologists. The ambulatory uptake of these agents did not alter the use of other treatment modalities within this timeframe.
AB - Introduction: Treatments for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) have changed in the last decade. In this context, we studied how management practices have shifted. Methods: We analyzed the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2010 to 2016 to assess current treatment practices for HS. Results: There were 1.78 (95% confidence interval 1.35, 2.22) million visits. Antibiotics were observed at 55.7% of visits and observations remained stable over time (p =.9, odds ratio 0.99 [0.73, 1.3]). Pain medications were observed at 15.5% of visits and observations remained stable over time (p =.4, odds ratio [0.87 [0.61, 1.2]). Biologic agents were observed at 0.9% of visits and observations remained stable over time (p =.4, odds ratio 0.61 [0.21, 1.7]). Systemic immunomodulators were observed at 2.6% of visits and observations remained stable over time (p =.08, odds ratio 0.42 [0.12, 1.1]). 100% of biologic agents and 88% of systemic immunomodulators were prescribed by dermatologists. Discussion: The use of biologic agents did not increase in this interval, but it is higher than in an earlier assessment of the NAMCS. Nearly all systemic immunomodulators are prescribed by dermatologists. The ambulatory uptake of these agents did not alter the use of other treatment modalities within this timeframe.
KW - dermatology
KW - epidemiology
KW - public health
KW - Skin
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091349962&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85091349962&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/09546634.2020.1825613
DO - 10.1080/09546634.2020.1825613
M3 - Article
C2 - 32940551
AN - SCOPUS:85091349962
SN - 0954-6634
VL - 33
SP - 1424
EP - 1427
JO - Journal of Dermatological Treatment
JF - Journal of Dermatological Treatment
IS - 3
ER -