Efficacy and safety results from the randomized controlled comparative study of adalimumab vs. methotrexate vs. placebo in patients with psoriasis (CHAMPION)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biologic therapies such as adalimumab, a tumour necrosis factor antagonist, are safe and effective in the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: To compare a biologic agent with methotrexate, a traditional systemic agent, to define clearly the role of biologics in psoriasis. METHODS: Patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were randomized to adalimumab (80 mg subcutaneously at week 0, then 40 mg every other week, n=108), methotrexate (7.5 mg orally, increased as needed and as tolerated to 25 mg weekly; n=110) or placebo (n=53) for 16 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving at least a 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) after 16 weeks. Safety was assessed at all visits through week 16. RESULTS: After 16 weeks, 79.6% of adalimumab-treated patients achieved PASI 75, compared with 35.5% for methotrexate (P<0.001 vs. adalimumab) and 18.9% for placebo (P<0.001 vs. adalimumab). Statistically significantly more adalimumab-treated patients (16.7%) than methotrexate-treated patients (7.3%) or placebo-treated patients (1.9%) achieved complete clearance of disease. The response to adalimumab was rapid, with a 57% improvement in mean PASI observed at week 4. Adverse events were similar across treatment groups. Adverse events leading to study discontinuation were greatest in the methotrexate group, primarily because of hepatic-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: After 16 weeks, adalimumab demonstrated significantly superior efficacy and more rapid improvements in psoriasis compared with either methotrexate or placebo.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".