Adalimumab retreatment successfully restores clinical response and health‐related quality of life in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who undergo therapy interruption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Published evaluations of skin disease signs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) upon therapy withdrawal and retreatment in psoriatic patients are limited to results of drug withdrawal after short-term treatment. Analyses are lacking that evaluate patients' response to retreatment for patients treated successfully long-term. OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with long-term clinical responses to adalimumab who then discontinue therapy and are retreated with the same dosing regimen as the initial course. Skin disease signs and patients' HRQoL are evaluated. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of an open-label study (NCT00195676) included patients who had responded favourably to adalimumab during initial treatment (≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI 75 response]) and had maintained good clinical response for an extended period (up to 252 weeks); patients had Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) 0 or 1 before treatment interruption. Following drug withdrawal (up to 40 weeks), all patients were retreated with adalimumab 80 mg initial dose, followed by 40 mg every-other-week for 16 weeks. PASI response and HRQoL were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 133 patients in this analysis, 24 (18%) relapsed during therapy withdrawal. After 16 weeks of retreatment, 75% who relapsed and 89.9% who did not relapse, had a PASI 75 response; 89.5% achieved European Consensus Programme treatment goals after 16 weeks of retreatment. During drug withdrawal, HRQoL disproportionally worsened compared to skin disease signs; HROoL also considerably worsened for patients who did not relapse. Patients regained HRQoL upon retreatment with adalimumab. No new safety signals were identified in this study. CONCLUSION: Retreatment with adalimumab was successful in improving psoriasis skin signs and HRQoL in this subgroup with initial and extended responses to therapy followed by relapse after treatment withdrawal. Patient's HRQoL should be considered, as it may substantially worsen during therapy interruption.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".