A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study to evaluate the addition of methotrexate to etanercept in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Etanercept plus methotrexate combination therapy has not been adequately investigated in psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate etanercept plus methotrexate vs. etanercept monotherapy in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who had not failed prior methotrexate or tumour necrosis factor-inhibitor therapy. METHODS: Patients received etanercept 50 mg twice weekly for 12 weeks followed by 50 mg once weekly for 12 weeks and were randomized 1 : 1 to receive methotrexate (7·5-15 mg weekly) or placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) at week 24. RESULTS: In total, 239 patients were enrolled in each arm. PASI 75 was significantly higher at week 24 for the combination therapy group compared with the monotherapy group (77·3% vs. 60·3%; P < 0·0001). Other PASI improvement scores at week 12 [PASI 75, 70·2% vs. 54·3% (P = 0·01); PASI 50, 92·4% vs. 83·8% (P = 0·01); and PASI 90, 34·0% vs. 23·1% (P = 0·03)] showed similar results as did week 24 PASI 50 (91·6% vs. 84·6%; P = 0·01) and PASI 90 (53·8% vs. 34·2%; P = 0·01). Significantly more patients receiving combination therapy than monotherapy had static Physician's Global Assessment of clear/almost clear at week 12 (65·5% vs. 47·0%; P = 0·01) and week 24 (71·8% vs. 54·3%; P = 0·01). Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 74·9% and 59·8% of combination therapy and monotherapy groups, respectively; three serious AEs were reported in each arm. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with etanercept plus methotrexate had acceptable tolerability and increased efficacy compared with etanercept monotherapy in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".