Safety of Adalimumab Dosed Every Week and Every Other Week: Focus on Patients with Hidradenitis Suppurativa or Psoriasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adalimumab is approved for the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), plaque psoriasis, and other inflammatory conditions. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine the safety of adalimumab administered every other week (EOW) and every week (EW) in patients with HS and psoriasis and to investigate informative data from non-dermatologic indications. METHODS: The safety of adalimumab 40-mg EOW versus EW dosing was examined during placebo-controlled and open-label study periods in patients with HS (three studies), psoriasis (two studies), Crohn's disease (six studies), ulcerative colitis (three studies), and rheumatoid arthritis (one study). RESULTS: No new safety risks or increased rates of particular adverse events (AEs) were identified with EW dosing. In patients with HS or psoriasis, the overall safety of adalimumab 40-mg EOW and EW was generally comparable. In studies of adalimumab for non-dermatologic indications, including Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and rheumatoid arthritis, the overall AE rates were similar for EW and EOW dosing. CONCLUSION: In patients with HS or psoriasis, the safety of adalimumab EW and EOW was comparable and consistent with the expected adalimumab AE profile. The safety of adalimumab EW dosing in patients with dermatologic conditions is supported by data comparing adalimumab EW and EOW dosing for Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and rheumatoid arthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00918255, NCT01468207, NCT01468233, NCT00645814, NCT00077779, NCT00055497, NCT01070303, NCT00195715, NCT00348283, NCT00385736, NCT00408629, and NCT00573794.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".