Twice-weekly topical calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate foam as proactive management of plaque psoriasis increases time in remission and is well tolerated over 52 weeks (PSO-LONG trial)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Topical psoriasis treatment relies on a reactive rather than a long-term proactive approach to disease relapse. OBJECTIVE: Assess long-term efficacy and safety of proactive psoriasis management with twice-weekly calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) foam. METHODS: Phase III trial (NCT02899962) included a 4-week open-label lead-in phase (Cal/BD foam once daily) and a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, maintenance phase. A total of 545 patients achieved treatment success (physician's global assessment "clear"/"almost clear," ≥2-grade improvement from baseline) and were randomized to proactive management (Cal/BD foam; n = 272) or reactive management (vehicle foam; n = 273) twice-weekly, with rescue treatment of Cal/BD foam once daily for 4 weeks upon relapse. Primary endpoint was time to first relapse (physician's global assessment "mild" or higher). RESULTS: A total of 251 randomized patients (46.1%) completed the trial. Median time to first relapse was 56 days (proactive) and 30 days (reactive). Patients in the proactive group had an additional 41 days in remission compared with the reactive group over 1 year (P < .001). Number of relapses per year of exposure was 3.1 (proactive) and 4.8 (reactive). Cal/BD foam was well tolerated. LIMITATIONS: Maintenance phase dropout rate (53.9%) was within the expected range but provides challenges in statistical analysis. CONCLUSION: Long-term proactive management with Cal/BD foam demonstrated superior efficacy vs reactive management.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".