MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2537338210 · doi:10.1177/1203475416676030

Real-World Experience With Apremilast in Treating Psoriasis

2016· article· en· W2537338210 on OpenAlexaff
Julia N. Mayba, Melinda Gooderham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPsoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis
Canadian institutionsProbity Medical ResearchQueen's UniversitySKiN HealthUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApremilastMedicinePsoriasisDiscontinuationAdverse effectDermatologyNauseaVomitingThalidomideClinical trialPopulationIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePsoriatic arthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial data have shown apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, to be efficacious and safe for the treatment of psoriasis. However, little real-world experience using apremilast in the community setting has been documented. OBJECTIVES: Many patients with psoriasis are often unresponsive to various treatment modalities, including topical, systemic, and biologic medications. The aim of this chart review was to assess the overall patient experience while using apremilast to treat psoriasis. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of electronic medical records was conducted of all patients prescribed apremilast in a community dermatology practice. RESULTS: Of 99 patients who were prescribed apremilast, 81 patients took at least 1 dose. In 63 patients, apremilast improved clinical disease severity, with 37% of patients achieving a body surface area <1%. As a treatment, it was generally well tolerated and caused no serious adverse events. The most commonly reported side effect resulting in discontinuation of treatment of apremilast was nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, apremilast was a safe and well-tolerated treatment with significant clinical improvement in our patient population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicPsoriasis: Treatment and PathogenesisFrench-language works237,207