Extended treatment with oral alitretinoin for patients with chronic hand eczema not fully responding to initial treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a previous large trial (Benefit of Alitretinoin in Chronic Hand Eczema; BACH), 47.7% of patients with severe chronic hand eczema (CHE) who received alitretinoin 30 mg achieved 'clear' or 'almost clear' hands during the initial 24-week treatment course. OBJECTIVES: The current open-label trial was designed to study extended treatment with a further 12- to 24-week course of oral alitretinoin 30 mg in patients who did not fully respond to initial treatment in the BACH study. METHODS: At the end of the BACH study, patients whose eczema was rated 'mild', 'moderate' or 'severe' according to the Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) were eligible for a 24-week, open-label, multicentre study. Patients (n=243) received 30 mg of alitretinoin once daily, irrespective of previous treatment in BACH; either alitretinoin 30 mg, alitretinoin 10 mg or placebo. RESULTS: By the end of the follow-on study, the PGA response rate to the subsequent course of alitretinoin 30 mg was 50% and 39% in patients treated previously in BACH with 10 or 30 mg per day, respectively, and 51% in patients who previously received placebo in BACH. Alitretinoin was well tolerated, and no significant late-arising toxicities were seen. CONCLUSIONS: For a considerable number of patients with CHE who did not fully respond after an initial 24-week treatment period, a switch from either placebo to the active compound at 30 mg or from the lower to the higher dose, or treatment prolongation at the higher dose could be beneficial. Alitretinoin remains well tolerated for overall treatment durations of up to 48 weeks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".