A randomized study comparing the combination of nbUVB and etanercept to etanercept monotherapy in patients with psoriasis who do not exhibit an excellent response after 12 weeks of etanercept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data on the combination of phototherapy with etanercept in patients who have not shown an excellent response to etanercept monotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To study the combination of narrow-band ultraviolet B (nbUVB) phototherapy with etanercept in patients not demonstrating an improvement of 90% in their Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI-90) after 12 weeks of etanercept. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Psoriatic patients not reaching PASI-90 after 12 weeks of etanercept therapy were randomized (1:1) to receive either etanercept (50 mg once a week) monotherapy or in combination with nbUVB three times weekly for periods of 4 weeks. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were randomized. Only 21.6% of patients achieved adherence of 80% or more for nbUVB treatments. At week 24, PASI-90 was reached by 16.2% of patients in the etanercept plus nbUVB group when compared with 15.8% of patients in the etanercept monotherapy group (p = 1.000). In patients with high adherence to nbUVB, the PASI-90 at week 16 was 42.9% for etanercept with nbUVB when compared with 3.4% for etanercept monotherapy (p = 0.018). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Addition of nbUVB after 12 weeks of etanercept did not significantly improve the clinical response except for a subset of patients with high adherence to nbUVB. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00640393.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".