A Phase 2 Randomized Trial of Apremilast in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated apremilast efficacy, safety, and pharmacodynamics in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo, apremilast 30 mg twice daily (APR30), or apremilast 40 mg twice daily (APR40) for 12 weeks. During weeks 12-24, all patients received APR30 or APR40. A biopsy substudy evaluated atopic dermatitis-related biomarkers. Among 185 randomly assigned intent-to-treat patients at week 12, a dose-response relationship was observed; APR40 (n = 63), but not APR30 (n = 58), led to statistically significant improvements (vs. placebo, n = 64) in Eczema Area and Severity Index (mean [standard deviation] percent change from baseline = -31.6% [44.6] vs. -11.0% [71.2], P < 0.04; primary endpoint). mRNA expression of T helper type 17/T helper type 22-related markers (IL-17A, IL-22, and S100A7/A8; P < 0.05) showed the highest reductions with APR40, with minimal changes in other immune axes. Safety with APR30 was largely consistent with apremilast's known profile (common adverse events: nausea, diarrhea, headache, and nasopharyngitis). With APR40, adverse events were more frequent, and cellulitis occurred (n = 6). An independent safety monitoring committee discontinued the APR40 dosage. APR40 showed modest efficacy and decreased atopic dermatitis-related biomarkers in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis patients. Adverse events, including cellulitis, were more frequent with APR40, which was discontinued during the trial. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT02087943 (clinicaltrials.gov).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".