Use of Apremilast to Achieve Psoriatic Arthritis Treatment Goals and Satisfaction at 1 Year in the Canadian Real-World APPRAISE Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The APPRAISE study was conducted to better understand the 12-month effectiveness, tolerability, and patient satisfaction with apremilast treatment for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in real-world settings. METHODS: APPRAISE (NCT03608657), a prospective, multicenter, observational study, enrolled adults with active PsA prescribed apremilast per routine care between July 2018 and March 2020. Patients were followed for 12 months with visits suggested every 4 months. The primary outcome measure was achievement of remission (REM) or low disease activity (LDA), defined as a Clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) score ≤ 13. RESULTS: Of the 102 patients who enrolled, 45 (44.1%) discontinued the study by 12 months. Most patients (75.5%) had moderate or high disease activity, and 24.5% were in REM/LDA at baseline based on cDAPSA score. Achievement of cDAPSA REM/LDA was 63.7%, 67.2%, and 53.8% at months 4, 8, and 12, respectively. In those continuing in the study, significant improvements were seen in swollen and tender joint counts, pain visual analog scale, psoriasis body surface area, and complete dactylitis resolution. Enthesitis reduction was also observed. Improvements in treatment satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes, including Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index and the 36-item Short Form physical and mental component scores, were observed over 12 months. The proportion of patients achieving a Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) increased significantly from baseline at months 4, 8, and 12 (P < 0.001). Apremilast was well tolerated; the most frequent adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation were diarrhea (9/102 [8.8%]), nausea (4/102 [3.9%]), and migraine (4/102 [3.9%]). CONCLUSION: In this real-world study conducted in Canadian rheumatology clinics, apremilast demonstrated clinical effectiveness in patients with active PsA, along with patient satisfaction with treatment. Safety findings were consistent with previously reported clinical data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03608657.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".