Long-term safety and tolerability of apremilast in patients with psoriasis: Pooled safety analysis for ≥156 weeks from 2 phase 3, randomized, controlled trials (ESTEEM 1 and 2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized, controlled trials demonstrated efficacy and safety of apremilast for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. OBJECTIVE: Assess long-term safety of oral apremilast in psoriasis patients. METHODS: Safety findings are reported for 0 to ≥156 weeks from the Efficacy and Safety Trial Evaluating the Effects of Apremilast in Psoriasis (ESTEEM) 1 and 2. RESULTS: The 0 to ≥156-week apremilast-exposure period included 1184 patients treated twice daily with apremilast 30 mg (1902.2 patient-years). During 0 to ≤52 weeks, the adverse events (AEs) that occurred in ≥5% of patients included diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, tension headache, and headache. From 0 to ≥156 weeks, no new AEs (affecting ≥5% of the population) were reported. AEs, serious AEs, and study drug discontinuations caused by AEs did not increase with long-term exposure. During the 0 to ≥156-week period, the rates of major cardiac events (exposure-adjusted incidence rate [EAIR] 0.5/100 patient-years), malignancies (EAIR 1.2/100 patient-years), depression (EAIR 1.8/100 patient-years), or suicide attempts (EAIR 0.1/100 patient-years) did not increase in comparison with the rates found during the 0 to ≤52-week period. No serious opportunistic infections, reactivation of tuberculosis, or clinically meaningful effects on laboratory measurements were reported. LIMITATIONS: This study had a high dropout rate (21% of patients ongoing >156 weeks); most were unrelated to safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and was generally well tolerated for ≥156 weeks.
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 | 0.035 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".