Apremilast for the treatment of moderate‐to‐severe palmoplantar psoriasis: results from a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomized study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Palmoplantar psoriasis is a variant of psoriasis vulgaris which can severely impair quality of life. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives of this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study were to assess the efficacy and impact on quality of life and work productivity of apremilast for the treatment of moderate-to-severe palmoplantar psoriasis. METHODS: A total of 100 patients with moderate-to-severe palmoplantar psoriasis were randomized to either apremilast 30 mg bid or placebo for 16 weeks. At Week 16, all patients received apremilast 30 mg bid until Week 32. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a Palmoplantar Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment (PPPGA) of 0/1 at Week 16. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who achieved a PPPGA of 0/1 at Week 16 between patients randomized to apremilast (14%) and placebo (4%; P = 0.1595). After 32 weeks of treatment with apremilast, 24% of patients achieved a PPGA of 0/1. In addition, apremilast was superior to placebo in achieving Palmoplantar Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PPPASI) 75 (apremilast: 22%; placebo: 8%; P = 0.0499), in improving PPPASI (apremilast: -7.4 ± 7.1; placebo: -3.6 ± 5.9; P = 0.0167), Dermatology Life Quality Index score (apremilast: -4.3 ± 5.1; placebo: -0.8 ± 4.5; P = 0.0004) and in reducing activity impairment (apremilast: -11.0 ± 22.3; placebo: 2.5 ± 25.5; P = 0.0063). CONCLUSION: Despite the absence of a significant difference between apremilast and placebo in proportion of patients achieving a PPPGA of 0/1, the presence of significant differences observed for several secondary endpoints suggests that apremilast may have a role in the treatment of moderate-to-severe palmoplantar psoriasis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".