2SPD-002 Comparative efficacy of dimethylfumarate and other treatments for moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In clinical practice, dimethylfumarate is considered an alternative at the level of conventional systemic drugs in the first line (cyclosporine, methotrexate, acitretin) for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PP). Purpose To establish whether dimethylfumarate, methotrexate, cyclosporine and acitretin can be considered equivalent therapeutic alternatives (ATE) in efficacy in PP. Material and methods We conducted a search of clinical trials of these drugs, phase III, double-blind, controlled with methotrexate or placebo, efficacy evaluated at 12 weeks or next, adults diagnosed with PP and uncontrolled disease with topical treatments and/or phototherapy. The 75% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity index was used as the main variable (PASI75). An indirect comparison (IC) of cyclosporin versus fumarates and dimethylfumarate versus methotrexate was performed using the Bucher method, using the Indirect Treatment Comparisons calculator from the Canadian Agency for Health Technology Assessment. For cyclosporine with more than one published study, a previous meta-analysis was performed (Der Simonian–Laird method), using the Joaquin Primo calculator. Considering that the failure can be recovered with an effective second line, it was taken as delta value, for PASI75 the value in previous published studies of IC of biological in PP, 15%. The results were analysed graphically and the relative position of the 95% CI and the equivalence margin were observed. To establish the positioning, the ATE Guide was followed. Results Included four clinical trials, two of ciclosporin, one of dimethylfumarate and one of fumarates. The acitretin studies were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. The difference in PASI75 expressed as RAR (IC95%) of methotrexate versus dimethylfumarate, and ciclosporin versus fumarates, was: 2.2% (-22,2;26,6) y 17 (-14,83;48,83). Applying the ATE Guide, methotrexate and dimethylfumarate can be declared ATE, being the probability of clinically relevant difference <50% (most of the 95% CI is in the equivalence range) and the failure does not involve serious/irreversible damage. Cyclosporine and fumarates could not be considered ATE (the RAR exceeded the delta with more than 50% probability so that the difference was clinically relevant). Conclusion Dimethylfumarate and methotrexate could be considered ATE. Ciclosporin and fumarates could not be considered ATE. For a definitive statement of ATE, the criteria of safety and adequacy should be considered. References and/or acknowledgements No conflict of interest.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".