Comparison of clinical and pharmacokinetic profiles of etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and 50 mg once weekly in patients with psoriasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Etanercept is a tumour necrosis factor antagonist that is approved in the U.S.A., Canada and Europe for treating adult patients with chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether clinical efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of etanercept 50 mg once weekly are comparable to etanercept 25 mg twice weekly. METHODS: Patients from a U.S. phase 3 study and a global phase 3 study were subsequently enrolled in an open-label extension study (extension study) where they all received etanercept at a dose of 50 mg once weekly for an initial 12 weeks. Patients who had received at least 24 weeks of etanercept 25 mg twice weekly in the global phase 3 study and were enrolled in the extension study (n = 265) were assessed for efficacy and safety at extension study baseline and after 12 weeks of etanercept 50 mg once weekly. Efficacy endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), the Dermatology Life Quality Index and the Physician's Global Assessment of psoriasis. In addition, PK profiles from patients in the U.S. phase 3 study were compared with PK profiles from another set of patients in the extension study. Comparison was made between a subset of patients receiving etanercept 25 mg twice weekly dosing in the U.S. phase 3 study (n = 13) and those receiving etanercept 50 mg once weekly in the extension study (n = 84). RESULTS: The mean PASI score was 5.77 at extension study baseline after treatment with etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, which was sustained at 5.82 after 12 weeks of etanercept 50 mg once weekly. Similar results were observed in other efficacy endpoints. Etanercept 50 mg once weekly was generally well tolerated. No new safety findings were reported. PK profiles overlapped extensively between the two dosing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: In this report, we demonstrate that efficacy, safety and PK profiles were comparable between etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and 50 mg once weekly in patients who had received at least 24 weeks of etanercept 25 mg twice weekly prior to receiving etanercept 50 mg once weekly in the extension study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".