Alefacept is Safe and Efficacious in the Treatment of Palmar Plantar Pustulosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alefacept blocks T-cell activation and induces apoptosis of memory T cells. It improves psoriasis vulgaris and may induce prolonged remissions. Experience with alefacept in palmar plantar pustulosis (PPP) is limited. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to observe the effectiveness and safety of alefacept in the treatment of PPP. METHODS: Alefacept was administered weekly for 16 weeks by intramuscular (IM) injection of 15 mg to 15 patients with moderate to very severe PPP. Patients were followed for an additional 12 weeks. RESULTS: Four weeks after 16 weeks of treatment, there was a 49.6% reduction in the Palmoplantar Pustulosis Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PPPASI) and a 38.6% and a 64.5% reduction in total and fresh pustules, respectively. Eight weeks after dosing, 53.3% achieved PPPASI 50, 26.7% achieved PPPASI 75, and one patient was clear. The mean percent reduction in total pustules and fresh pustules was 46.1% and 61.2%, respectively; 73% had no pain, 53% had no itching, and 80% had no functional impairment. The palms responded better than the soles. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot showed that 16 weeks of once-weekly alefacept 15 mg IM was safe, led to improvement in PPP in all 15 treated patients, and induced a remission in one patient. Larger double-blind studies are warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".