Effects of briakinumab treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis on health‐related quality of life and work productivity and activity impairment: results from a randomized phase III study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is known to have a significant negative impact on a patient's health-related quality of life, including social, recreational and work activities. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of briakinumab on quality of life and work productivity measures in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. METHODS: Patients received either briakinumab (n = 981) or placebo (n = 484) during the 12-week induction phase of trial M06-890. At week 12, patients with a Physician's Global Assessment score of 'Clear' or 'Minimal' entered the 40-week maintenance phase and were to receive briakinumab every 4 weeks, briakinumab every 12 weeks, or placebo. At weeks 12 and 52, treatment groups were compared using mean change from baseline in health-related quality of life and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire scores and the percentage of patients with minimum clinically important differences. RESULTS: At week 12, more than half of the briakinumab-treated patients achieved improvements meeting or exceeding minimum clinically important differences for Dermatology Life Quality Index (75.9%), and psoriasis- (64.8%), and psoriatic arthritis-related (54.1%) pain scores; 48.4% achieved improvements for activity impairment. Although improvements in quality of life and work productivity measures were maintained at week 52 for both briakinumab regimens, responder rates were consistently greater in the every-4-week group than in the every-12-week group. CONCLUSION: Briakinumab treatment resulted in clinically significant improvements in quality of life and work productivity in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis. Maintenance therapy was associated with a more pronounced benefit for the every-4-week briakinumab regimen.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".