A new scalp formulation of calcipotriol plus betamethasone dipropionate compared with each of its active ingredients in the same vehicle for the treatment of scalp psoriasis: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need for new treatments for scalp psoriasis, as many topical treatments are cosmetically unacceptable and difficult to apply, resulting in poor compliance. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of a new, once-daily, two-compound scalp formulation (Xamiol; LEO Pharma A/S, Ballerup, Denmark) containing calcipotriol 50 microg g(-1) plus betamethasone 0.5 mg g(-1) (as dipropionate), with the active ingredients as single compounds in the same vehicle. METHODS: This 8-week, multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group study, randomized adult patients with scalp psoriasis involving > 10% of the scalp to the two-compound scalp formulation (n = 568), betamethasone dipropionate 0.5 mg g(-1) (n = 563), or calcipotriol 50 microg g(-1) (n = 286). The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of patients with 'absence of disease' or 'very mild disease' according to investigators' assessments at week 8. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with 'absence of disease' or 'very mild disease' at week 8 was significantly higher in the two-compound group (68.4%) than the betamethasone dipropionate (61.0%, P = 0.0079) or calcipotriol (43.4%, P < 0.0001) groups. The proportion of patients rating their scalp psoriasis as 'clear' or 'almost clear' was significantly higher for the two-compound scalp formulation (69.6%) than for betamethasone dipropionate (59.9%, P = 0.0006) or calcipotriol (44.7%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of lesional/perilesional adverse events was lower in the two-compound and betamethasone dipropionate groups than the calcipotriol group. CONCLUSIONS: The two-compound scalp formulation was well tolerated and more effective in the treatment of scalp psoriasis than either of its individual components in the same vehicle.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".