Patients with psoriasis have different preferences for topical therapy, highlighting the importance of individualized treatment approaches: randomized phase IIIb PSO‐INSIGHTFUL study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poor adherence to topical therapy in psoriasis remains an issue; it is associated with poor clinical outcomes, reduced quality of life and increased costs. Treatment-related factors leading to poor adherence include lack of efficacy, excessive time applying medication and poor cosmetic characteristics (e.g. slow absorption, greasiness). OBJECTIVE: To assess the topical treatment attributes that influence patient preference for fixed combination calcipotriol 50 μg/g (Cal) and betamethasone 0.5 mg/g as dipropionate (BD) foam vs. gel, as well as in comparison with the latest topical treatment (LTT) a patient received. METHODS: PSO-INSIGHTFUL was a Phase IIIb, prospective, multicentre (Canada/Germany), open-label, randomized, two-arm crossover study in patients aged ≥18 years with mild-to-severe psoriasis (NCT02310646). Following a washout period of up to 4 weeks, patients were randomized 1 : 1 to once-daily Cal/BD foam for 1 week, followed by Cal/BD gel for 1 week, or vice versa. Patients completed six questionnaires evaluating patient preferences. RESULTS: A total of 213 patients were randomized; 118 had received a topical treatment in the previous 3 months. Based on the Subject's Preference Assessment, 50% of patients preferred Cal/BD foam and 50% preferred Cal/BD gel. Based on the Topical Product Usability Questionnaire (TPUQ), overall mean scores were high for both Cal/BD foam and gel, and were often significantly in favour of both products compared with LTT. Greater differences between Cal/BD foam and gel vs. LTT occurred when the previous treatment was an ointment or cream. Cal/BD foam was generally preferred by younger patients (aged 18-39 years), whereas Cal/BD gel tended to be preferred by older patients (aged ≥40 years). Results from other questionnaires were aligned with the TPUQ. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with psoriasis have diverse needs and different preferences for topical treatment. This knowledge may help prescribers to choose the right formulation for the right patient, potentially leading to improved adherence and better treatment outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 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".