Changes in C‐reactive protein in patients with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis switched to adalimumab therapy after suboptimal response to etanercept, methotrexate or phototherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psoriasis treatment can lower levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein (CRP). OBJECTIVE: Evaluate CRP changes in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who switched to adalimumab following suboptimal response to previous therapies. METHODS: C-reactive protein was measured at screening and after 16 weeks of adalimumab treatment following discontinuation of previous therapies: etanercept (substudy E; n = 77), methotrexate (substudy M; n = 38) or narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy (substudy P; n = 27). Associations of CRP with baseline characteristics and efficacy measures were evaluated. RESULTS: Median CRP change at the final visit was -0.3 mg/L overall and -0.4, -0.3 and -0.3 mg/L in substudies E, M and P respectively. Clinical response [Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 'clear' or 'minimal'] was associated with greater CRP reductions vs. no response (PGA 'mild' or worse) overall (-0.4 vs. -0.3 mg/L) and in substudies E (-0.4 vs. -0.1 mg/L) and M (-0.5 vs. -0.2 mg/L), but not P (-0.1 vs. -0.4 mg/L). CRP decreases were, respectively, -0.4 and -0.3 mg/L in patients with and without a history of psoriatic arthritis and -0.1, -0.3 and -0.6 mg/L in normal weight, overweight and obese patients, respectively. CRP decreases after 16 weeks correlated positively (β = 0.004) with percentage change in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI; P = 0.0398) and negatively (β = -0.360) with baseline CRP (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: C-reactive protein levels decreased during adalimumab therapy in patients with psoriasis who experienced suboptimal response to previous therapies. Clinical response was associated with greater CRP reductions overall and in substudies E and M, but not P. CRP reductions correlated with percentage reductions in PASI.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".