AB1093 LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENT IN INDIVIDUAL ACR RESPONSE CRITERIA AND RESIDUAL DISEASE IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS PATIENTS TREATED WITH GUSELKUMAB: POST HOC ANALYSIS OF A PHASE 3 RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Treatment effects on PsA joint symptoms are assessed by ACR response rates, reflecting percentages of patients (pts) meeting a composite measure of improvement from baseline (BL) at specific timepoints. Alternatively, the ACR-numeric (ACR-N) is a continuous measure of improvement based on 7 ACR components. Objectives Contrast performance of ACR response rates with ACR-N in characterizing guselkumab (GUS) treatment effect in PsA and describe duration and extent of continuous improvement with GUS using ACR-N and ACR components through week (W) 100. Methods The phase 3 DISCOVER-2 trial enrolled bio-naïve adults with active PsA (swollen and tender joint counts [SJC/TJC] ≥5, C-reactive protein [CRP] ≥0.6 mg/dL). 739 pts were randomized (1:1:1) and treated with GUS 100 mg every 4W (Q4W); GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; or placebo (PBO) with crossover to GUS Q4W at W24. ACR20/50/70 response rates through W100 were determined using non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing data; GUS Q4W/Q8W and PBO rates were compared through W24. Duration of continuous improvement over 100W of GUS was assessed by contrasting least square mean (LSM) ACR-N and ACR component values between consecutive visits. Percent changes in SJC, TJC, physician global (MDGA), pt global (PtGA), health assessment quality disease index (HAQ-DI), CRP, and pt-pain were also assessed, adjusting for treatment group, BL use of csDMARDs, and respective BL scores. Results ACR response rates were significantly greater with GUS Q4W/Q8W vs PBO by W4 (ACR20), W8 (ACR50), and W8-12 (ACR70); significant differences in ACR-N between GUS Q4W/Q8W vs PBO were observed by W2 (GUS Q4W) or W8 (GUS Q8W) (Table 1; nominal p<0.05). Similar responses were observed with GUS Q4W and Q8W. Among GUS-treated pts, nominally significant improvements comparing ACR-N scores across consecutive visits were observed by W2, with a positive trajectory through W100 (Figure 1). Individual ACR components also significantly improved by W2 and – apart from CRP levels that rapidly plateaued to means <1 mg/dL – continued to improve vs previous visit through W68-84 of GUS (nominal p<0.05). Conclusion GUS rapidly improved PsA activity whether assessed by ACR response or ACR-N. Early response was apparent across ACR components, followed by a positive trajectory through 2 years of GUS that yielded low levels of residual disease. REFERENCES: NIL. Acknowledgements: NIL. Disclosure of Interests Peter Nash Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Iain McInnes Shareholder of: Causeway Therapeutics and Evelo Compugen, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cabaletta, Compugen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Astra Zeneca, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and UCB, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Francois Nantel Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Consultant of: Janssen, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Emmanouil Rampakakis Consultant of: Janssen, Employee of: JSS Medical Research, Inc., Enrique Soriano Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».