Clinical similarity of biosimilar ABP 501 to adalimumab in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase III study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ABP 501 is a biosimilar of adalimumab. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of ABP 501 with adalimumab. METHODS: This 52-week, double-blind study randomized patients with moderate to severe psoriasis to ABP 501 or adalimumab. At week 16, those with 50% or more improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score from baseline on ABP 501 continued the same treatment, whereas adalimumab-treated patients were rerandomized to adalimumab or ABP 501. Clinical similarity in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index percent improvement from baseline to week 16 (primary end point) was established if the point estimate of treatment difference and its 2-sided 95% confidence interval between groups was within equivalence margin of ±15. Patients, including those undergoing a single transition at week 16, were evaluated for safety and immunogenicity. RESULTS: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index percent improvement at week 16 was 80.9 for ABP 501 and 83.1 for adalimumab (least-square mean difference -2.18 [95% confidence interval -7.39 to 3.02]). Adverse events (67.2% [117/174] vs 63.6% [110/173]) and antidrug antibody incidence (55.2% [96/174] vs 63.6% [110/173]) for ABP 501 vs adalimumab were similar. Safety, including immunogenicity, was similar among groups after single transition (week 20). LIMITATIONS: The 52-week data are not reported here. CONCLUSIONS: ABP 501 was shown to be clinically similar to adalimumab. Safety and immunogenicity were not impacted immediately after single transition (adalimumab to ABP 501).
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".