Clinical Efficacy of Efalizumab in Patients With Chronic Plaque Psoriasis: Results From Three Randomized Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trials: Part I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective psoriasis therapies are needed for long-term symptom control. OBJECTIVE: Assess efalizumab (Raptiva) efficacy in a large cohort of psoriasis patients. METHODS: Data from three Phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter studies were pooled. Patients (n = 1,651) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis received 12 weeks of subcutaneous efalizumab 1 or 2 mg/kg/wk or placebo. RESULTS: All efficacy measures reached statistical significance within each of the individual studies (p < 0.001) and overall. More efalizumab-treated patients achieved > or = 75% and > or = 50% Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) improvement at week 12 than did placebo-treated patients (27.8% vs 3.8% [p < 0.001] and 56.1% vs 14.6% [p < 0.001], respectively). Significant PASI improvements occurred as early as week 2 (12.5% vs 7.9%, p =0.0001). Adverse events were generally mild to moderate. CONCLUSION: Efalizumab resulted in early and significant improvement for all efficacy endpoints and was well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis.
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 | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".