A Phase III Randomized Study of Apremilast, an Oral Phosphodiesterase 4 Inhibitor, for Active Ankylosing Spondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods This phase III, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study ( ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT01583374 ) randomized patients with active AS (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice daily, or apremilast 30 mg twice daily for 24 weeks, followed by a long-term extension phase (up to 5 yrs). The primary endpoint was Assessment of the Spondyloarthritis international Society 20 (ASAS20) response at Week 16. The effect of treatment on radiographic outcomes after 104 weeks was assessed using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS). Results In total, 490 patients with active AS were randomized in the study (placebo: n = 164; apremilast 20 mg twice daily: n = 163; apremilast 30 mg twice daily: n = 163). The primary endpoint of ASAS20 response at Week 16 was not met (placebo: 37%; apremilast 20 mg twice daily: 35%; apremilast 30 mg twice daily: 33%; P = 0.44 vs placebo). At Week 104, mean (SD) changes from baseline in mSASSS were 0.83 (3.6), 0.98 (2.2), and 0.57 (1.9) in patients initially randomized to placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice daily, and apremilast 30 mg twice daily, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events through Week 104 were diarrhea, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory infection, and nausea. Conclusion No clinical benefit was observed with apremilast treatment in patients with active AS. The safety and tolerability of apremilast were consistent with its known profile.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".