Efficacy and safety of adalimumab when added to inadequate therapy for the treatment of psoriasis: results of PRIDE, an open‐label, multicentre, phase IIIb study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adalimumab is an effective treatment for chronic plaque psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of adalimumab for psoriasis patients who did not adequately respond to prior psoriasis therapy. METHODS: PRIDE (an Open-Label Access PRogram to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of Adalimumab When Added to InaDEquate Therapy for the Treatment of Psoriasis) was a multicentre, Phase IIIb study in Canada. Patients with active moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis who failed to respond to, or were intolerant of, prior therapies received adalimumab 80 mg at Week 0 followed by adalimumab 40 mg every other week Weeks 1 through 23. The primary efficacy measure was PASI (Psoriasis Area Severity Index) 75 response at Week 16. Secondary efficacy measures included PASI 90/100 and percentage change from baseline PASI score. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 203 patients were enrolled at 26 sites. Baseline characteristics were: male, 61.1%; mean age, 45.5 years; mean PASI score, 20.0; previous exposure to biologics, 38.4%. At Week 16, PASI 75/90/100 responses were achieved by 70.9%/49.3%/24.1% of patients, respectively. Mean percentage PASI score decrease from baseline to Week 16 was 79.5%. Mean percentage PASI improvement and response rates were maintained through Week 24. Nasopharyngitis and upper respiratory tract infection were the only AEs to occur in ≥5% of patients. Nine patients experienced serious AEs; four were considered possibly or probably related to adalimumab. CONCLUSION: Adalimumab was safe, well-tolerated and effective for treatment of active plaque psoriasis in patients who had not adequately responded to prior therapy.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".