Patterns of Combination Therapy with Alefacept for the Treatment of Psoriasis in Canada in the AWARE Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence from clinical trials supports the use of alefacept for the treatment of patients with chronic plaque psoriasis, either as monotherapy or combined with other treatment modalities. OBJECTIVE: AWARE (Amevive Wisdom Acquired from Real-World Evidence) is a multicenter, observational, phase IV Canadian registry of psoriasis patients treated with alefacept. METHODS: Patients with chronic plaque psoriasis were treated with at least one course of alefacept treatment followed by a period of at least 12 weeks off-treatment. The use of combination therapy with alefacept in a real-world population of psoriasis patients is presented here, including the types of psoriasis therapies received by patients at the time of enrolment, reasons for initiating alefacept, and discontinuation or dosage reduction of concomitant therapy. RESULTS: The majority of patients were receiving other antipsoriatic therapies at the time of enrolment into the AWARE study, most commonly topical therapy, systemic agents, or phototherapy. Most patients were receiving monotherapy prior to the initiation of alefacept. There was little change in the use of topical therapies with alefacept at 24 weeks, whereas a substantial proportion of patients were able to reduce or discontinue concomitant systemic therapies and/or phototherapy. The use of combination therapy regimens was relatively consistent across the country and by age groups, although younger patients were prescribed systemic agents more often than older patients. CONCLUSION: Alefacept is commonly added to other antipsoriatic therapies in a broad population of real-world chronic plaque psoriasis patients in Canada and may allow for dosage reduction or discontinuation of concomitant systemic agents or phototherapy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".