One-Year, Multicenter, Open-Label, Single-Arm Study Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Etanercept for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis in a Canadian Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although etanercept is well tolerated and effective in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, data are limited in Canadian practice settings. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of etanercept in Canadian patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (Physician Global Assessment [PGA] ≥ 3) in routine practice. METHODS: A 1-year, multicenter, open-label trial of 246 patients enrolled from March 2006 to July 2009 was conducted. Patients received etanercept 50 mg subcutaneously twice weekly for 3 months and then 50 mg once weekly for 9 months. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a PGA score ≤ 2 at month 12. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients achieving PGA score ≤ 2 at months 3, 6, and 9 and change from baseline at month 12 for Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), body surface area, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Adverse events were reported. RESULTS: At month 12, 73.5% (95% CI 67.2-79.1) achieved a PGA score ≤ 2. The response was similar regardless of the previous response to systemic or phototherapy. The proportion of patients achieving this score improved from 2.2% (95% CI 0.3-4.2) at baseline to 73.5% (95% CI 67.2-79.1) at 12 months. At 12 months, patients with a DLQI score of 0 or ≥ 5-point improvement was 28.8% (95% CI 22.9-34.7) and 47.3% (95% CI 40.8-53.9), respectively. No new safety signals were reported. CONCLUSION: The majority of this Canadian population demonstrated a meaningful improvement in PGA and DLQI scores over 1 year.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".