Enhanced Effectiveness of Adalimumab Compared to Topical/Traditional Systemic Agents in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis: Results from a Canadian Observational Epidemiologic Study (COMPLETE-PS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Real-world evidence is important for post-marketing evaluation. Data comparing adalimumab's effectiveness and safety with traditional therapies in clinical settings are currently lacking. The aim of this study was to compare real-world effectiveness of adalimumab versus topical/traditional systemic agents for management of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis METHODS: Patients requiring change in treatment were enrolled between 2011 and 2016 and followed per routine care for up to 24 months. Achievement of Physician Global Assessment (PGA) ≤ 1.0 at 6 months was assessed with logistic regression; time to achievement was assessed using Cox regression. Additional outcomes were assessed using repeated measures mixed models. RESULTS: Patients receiving adalimumab (n = 293) versus topical/traditional systemic agents (n = 302) were more likely to achieve PGA ≤ 1.0 at 6 months (odds ratio 2.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-4.30) in a shorter time (hazard ratio 2.14, 95% CI 1.53-3.00), reporting both lower body surface area and improved quality of life and work productivity. CONCLUSION: In this real-world study, adalimumab was more effective than topical/traditional systemic agents at reducing disease activity and improving quality of life outcomes among Canadians with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. (NCT00799877).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".