Five-year analysis from the ESPRIT 10-year postmarketing surveillance registry of adalimumab treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ESPRIT is an ongoing, 10-year, observational registry, evaluating long-term safety and effectiveness of adalimumab treatment in routine clinical practice for patients with moderate to severe, chronic plaque psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: Initial 5-year results are reported. METHODS: Two populations were analyzed: the "all-treated" population received 1 or more adalimumab doses in registry, continuing adalimumab treatment from a current prescription or previous study participation, and included the "new-prescription" population initiating adalimumab 4 weeks or earlier preregistry entry. RESULTS: Data were collected from September 26, 2008, through November 30, 2013, for all-treated (n = 6059), which included new-prescription (n = 2580, 42.6%); median registry exposure was 765 and 677 days, respectively. In all-treated, rate (events per 100 patient-years of total adalimumab exposure [E/100PY]) of serious treatment-emergent adverse events (inside or outside of the registry) was 4.3 E/100PY, serious infection 1.0 E/100PY, malignancies 0.9 E/100PY (nonmelanoma skin cancers 0.6 E/100PY; melanomas <0.1 E/100PY). Standardized mortality ratio was 0.30 (95% confidence interval 0.19-0.44). Physician Global Assessment clear or minimal (effectiveness parameter) was achieved by 57.0% at 12 months and 64.7% at 60 months of treatment. LIMITATIONS: Observational data are subject to outcome-reporting bias. CONCLUSION: No new safety signals were observed with adalimumab treatment during this initial 5-year registry review. Observed number of deaths was below expected. As-observed effectiveness remained stable through 60 months.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".