Long‐term efficacy and safety of ustekinumab, with and without dosing adjustment, in patients with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis: results from the PHOENIX 2 study through 5 years of follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the dosing flexibility and long-term efficacy of biological agents is limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of ustekinumab with and without dosing adjustment in the 5-year PHOENIX 2 study. METHODS: Patients were randomized to placebo or ustekinumab (45 or 90 mg) at weeks 0, 4, then every 12 weeks; patients receiving placebo crossed-over at week 12. Dosing adjustments were permitted at/beyond week 28 for early adjusters (weeks 28 or 40 per response); late adjusters (during long-term extension per investigator judgement); and nonadjusters (maintained randomized treatment throughout the study). Efficacy and safety were evaluated through weeks 244 and 264, respectively. RESULTS: In the overall population, 70% (849 of 1212) of ustekinumab-treated patients completed treatment through week 244, with high proportions of patients responding to the 45-mg and 90-mg doses, respectively: 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) (76·5% and 78·6%) and PASI 90 (50·0% and 55·5%). Approximately 20% of patients were early adjusters, 30% were late adjusters and 50% were nonadjusters. Approximately half of the late adjusters initiated adjustments after already achieving PASI 75. Improved response was generally observed following dosing adjustments. Through week 264, safety event rates did not increase and event rates were generally comparable between dose groups and between patients with and without dosing adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ustekinumab for up to 5 years was safe and effective. Improved response was generally demonstrated following dosing adjustments; further investigations are required to quantify actual incremental benefits. The results also suggest that some patients may desire treatment goals beyond PASI 75.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".