Adalimumab Efficacy in Patients with Psoriasis Who Received or Did Not Respond to Prior Systemic Therapy: A Pooled Post Hoc Analysis of Results from Three Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are limited data from randomized controlled clinical trials on the outcomes of biologics after discontinuation of a different systemic therapy. To determine the efficacy of adalimumab in patients who previously received systemic therapy (including failed therapy), we performed a pooled post hoc analysis of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response data from three double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. METHODS: Patients from the M02-528, REVEAL, and CHAMPION studies who were previously exposed to systemic treatment were categorized based on their response. The efficacy of adalimumab compared with placebo was analyzed at the end of the double-blind treatment period for the overall pooled intent-to-treat population (N = 1469) and subgroups that received (n = 780) or did not respond to (n = 229) previous systemic pretreatments. RESULTS: Rates for an improvement of ≥75% from baseline in the PASI score (PASI75 response) were significantly greater (p < 0.001) at week 16 in patients treated with adalimumab compared with patients who received placebo in the overall (72.1 vs. 8.0%, respectively), previously treated (72.7 vs. 8.5%), and previously failed treatment (70.4 vs. 8.1%) groups. PASI75 response rates were similar in the overall group and in patients who did not respond to methotrexate, cyclosporine, or psoralen plus ultraviolet A therapy. Improvements of ≥90 or ≥100 % from baseline PASI score were also higher with adalimumab vs. placebo in previously treated patients. Adverse events were similar among subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab was efficacious for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis regardless of prior exposure to systemic therapies or failure of those prior therapies. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIERS: NCT00645814, NCT00237887, NCT00235820.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".