Update on Alefacept Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alefacept has been demonstrated in clinical trials to be an effective, safe, and well-tolerated treatment strategy when used alone or in combination with other antipsoriatic therapies in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: AWARE (Amevive Wisdom Acquired from Real-World Evidence) is a multicenter, observational, Canadian phase IV registry evaluating the efficacy and safety of alefacept, alone or in combination with other antipsoriatic therapies, in patients with psoriasis. METHODS: Patients with chronic plaque psoriasis were treated with at least one course of alefacept followed by an off-treatment period, typically lasting 12 or more weeks. Prospective follow-up was at least 60 weeks, depending on when patients presented for retreatment. Safety data collected throughout the study included the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), dosing suspensions, and withdrawals owing to adverse events. RESULTS: Twelve SAEs were reported in psoriasis patients treated with at least one course of alefacept, with only one considered to be possibly related to the study drug. Approximately one-quarter of patients missed at least one dose of alefacept during the course of the study. A total of 291 doses of alefacept were missed, representing almost 4% of the total doses administered in this group of patients. Low CD4(+) count was the most frequent reason for missed doses; however, no patient had persistently low CD4(+) counts requiring permanent discontinuation of alefacept treatment. Seven patients in the AWARE registry discontinued treatment with alefacept, with the most common reason being patient request. CONCLUSION: The AWARE study supports the safety of alefacept used alone or in combination with other antipsoriatic therapies, in a broad population of real-world chronic plaque psoriasis patients in Canada.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
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".