Impact of adalimumab treatment on health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes: results from a 16-week randomized controlled trial in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important in evaluating the impact of psoriasis and its treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of adalimumab treatment on HRQOL and other PROs in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. METHODS: A 16-week, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in 271 adults with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. Patients were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to adalimumab, methotrexate (MTX) or placebo. PROs were evaluated throughout the study and included the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Patient's Global Assessment of disease severity, plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis pain visual analogue scale (VAS), Psoriasis-Related Pruritus Assessment and EuroQOL 5D (EQ-5D). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed between the adalimumab- and placebo-treated and the MTX-treated groups on mean DLQI total scores during the 16-week double-blind study (both P<0.001). Significant differences, favouring adalimumab compared with placebo, were also observed on the Patient's Global Assessment of disease severity (P<0.001), VAS for pain (P<0.001), Psoriasis-Related Pruritus Assessment (P<0.001), EQ-5D VAS (P<0.001) and EQ-5D index score (P<0.01). Compared with MTX, adalimumab resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in the Patient's Global Assessment of disease severity (P<0.001), the VAS for pain (P<0.01) and the Psoriasis-Related Pruritus Assessment (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab was efficacious in improving dermatology-specific HRQOL, disease control and symptom outcomes 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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".