Efficacy and safety of apremilast in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis of the scalp: Results of a phase 3b, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients with psoriasis are bothered by symptoms in highly visible, pruritic areas, such as the scalp. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of apremilast for moderate to severe scalp psoriasis. METHODS: This phase 3b, double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized adults with moderate to severe scalp psoriasis who had inadequate response/intolerance to at least 1 topical scalp psoriasis therapy (NCT03123471). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved Scalp Physician Global Assessment response, defined as score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear), with at least a 2-point reduction, at week 16. Secondary endpoints included at least a 4-point improvement from baseline in Whole Body Itch and Scalp Itch Numeric Rating Scales (NRSs) and mean improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at week 16. RESULTS: There were 303 randomized patients (placebo: n = 102; apremilast: n = 201). With apremilast, significantly more patients achieved Scalp Physician Global Assessment (43.3% vs 13.7%), Scalp Itch NRS (47.1% vs 21.1%), and Whole Body Itch NRS (45.5% vs 22.5%) response, and significantly greater DLQI improvement was observed versus placebo (-6.7 vs -3.8; all P < .0001). Common adverse events with apremilast were diarrhea (30.5%), nausea (21.5%), headache (12.0%), and vomiting (5.5%). LIMITATIONS: Patients with mild disease were not enrolled. CONCLUSION: Apremilast showed efficacy for the treatment of moderate to severe scalp 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".