MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044848165 · doi:10.1002/acr2.11156

Long‐Term Safety and Tolerability of Apremilast Versus Placebo in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Pooled Safety Analysis of Three Phase III, Randomized, Controlled Trials

2020· article· en· W3044848165 on OpenAlexaff
Philip J. Mease, Dafna D. Gladman, Juan J. Gómez‐Reino, Stephen Hall, Arthur Kavanaugh, Éric Lespessailles, Georg Schett, Maria Paris, Nikolay Delev, Lichen Teng, J. Wollenhaupt

Bibliographic record

VenueACR Open Rheumatology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
FundersCelgene
KeywordsApremilastMedicinePsoriatic arthritisTolerabilityPlaceboAdverse effectInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialPopulationArthritisAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) requires long-term treatment, yet safety concerns and monitoring requirements make maintenance a challenge. This analysis of pooled Psoriatic Arthritis Long-term Assessment of Clinical Efficacy (PALACE) 1, 2, and 3 data describes 3-year apremilast safety and tolerability in PsA. METHODS: Patients with active PsA were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 30 mg twice daily, or apremilast 20 mg twice daily. Placebo patients were re-randomized to apremilast 30 mg twice daily or 20 mg twice daily at week 16 (early escape) or 24. Double-blind treatment continued to week 52; patients could continue apremilast during an open-label, long-term treatment phase. RESULTS: In total, 1493 patients received at least one dose of study medication and were included in the safety population (placebo: n = 495; apremilast 30 mg: n = 497; apremilast 20 mg: n = 501). Among patients receiving apremilast, 53.2% (767/1441) completed 3 years of treatment. Greater rates of adverse events (AEs) were reported with apremilast (61.1%; exposure-adjusted incidence rate [EAIR]/100 patient-years, 265.1) versus placebo (47.5%; EAIR/100 patient-years, 200.7) in the placebo-controlled period. During weeks 0 to ≤52, the most common AEs occurring in apremilast-exposed patients were diarrhea (13.9%; EAIR/100 patient-years, 18.6), nausea (12.3%; EAIR/100 patient-years, 16.0), headache (9.4%; EAIR/100 patient-years, 12.1), upper respiratory tract infection (9.1%; EAIR/100 patient-years, 11.5), and nasopharyngitis (6.2%; EAIR/100 patient-years, 7.7). Most AEs were mild/moderate with apremilast exposure ≤156 weeks. Rates of depression remained low (EAIR/100 patient-years, 1.8). Major adverse cardiac events (EAIR/100 patient-years, 0.5), malignancies (EAIR/100 patient-years, 0.9), and serious opportunistic infections (EAIR/100 patient-years, 0.0) were infrequent over the 3-year exposure period. Discontinuation rates due to AEs were low (<7.5%) across all apremilast-exposure periods. Incidences of clinically meaningful abnormalities in postbaseline laboratory values was low; most values returned to baseline levels with continued treatment and without intervention. CONCLUSION: Apremilast demonstrated a favorable safety profile and was well tolerated up to 156 weeks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.015
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACR Open RheumatologySame topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207