OBSERVE-5: Comparison of Etanercept-Treated Psoriasis Patients From Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: OBSERVE-5 surveillance registry results evaluating etanercept safety and effectiveness in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis from Canada and the United States have been reported from data collected between May 2006 and December 2012. Although both countries have an identical indicated starting dose, the maintenance dose can differ and thus affect management strategies and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term safety and effectiveness outcomes of etanercept in the Canadian and US cohorts. METHODS: Primary end points included exposure-adjusted event incidence rates of serious adverse events and serious infectious events. Secondary end points included exposure-adjusted event incidence rates of events of medical interest and efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: Over 5 years, Canadian patients received a higher maintenance dose of etanercept (50 mg twice/week) more frequently than those from the United States. Safety outcome comparisons revealed that Canadian patients had a significantly lower occurrence of serious adverse events than patients from the United States, with an overall exposure-adjusted event incidence rate per 100 patient-years of 4.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.05-6.29) vs 7.76 (95% CI 7.04-8.54), respectively. Serious infectious event rates were not significantly different between the 2 countries. Secondary outcomes of events of medical interest and effectiveness also did not reveal significant differences between the 2 cohorts. CONCLUSION: After 5 years of etanercept use, safety and effectiveness outcomes were similar between patients from Canada and the United States, with the exception of a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events in the Canadian population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".