Efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients with psoriasis who have an inadequate response to ustekinumab: results of the randomized, double‐blind, phase <scp>III NAVIGATE</scp> trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guselkumab, an anti-interleukin-23 monoclonal antibody, has demonstrated significant efficacy in phase III psoriasis trials. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis who had an inadequate response to ustekinumab. METHODS: In this phase III, randomized, double-blind study, 871 patients received open-label ustekinumab (45 mg or 90 mg) at weeks 0 and 4. At week 16, 268 patients with an inadequate response to ustekinumab [Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) ≥ 2] were randomized (double-blind) to guselkumab 100 mg or to continue ustekinumab; 585 of 871 patients (67%) with IGA 0/1 at week 16 continued open-label ustekinumab. The primary end point was the number of visits at which randomized patients achieved IGA 0/1 and at least a two-grade improvement (from week 16) from week 28 to week 40. Improvement ≥ 90% or 100% in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90/100) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) of 0/1 were also assessed. RESULTS: The mean number of visits at which patients achieved IGA 0/1 and at least a two-grade improvemen (week 28-40) was significantly greater in the guselkumab group vs. the randomized ustekinumab group (1·5 vs. 0·7; P < 0·001); greater proportions of patients in the guselkumab group achieved IGA 0/1 and at least a two-grade improvement at week 28 (31·1% vs. 14·3%; P = 0·001) and week 52 (36·3% vs. 17·3%; P < 0·001). Greater proportions of patients treated with guselkumab achieved PASI 90, PASI 100 and DLQI 0/1 at week 52. After week 16, 64·4% of patients in the guselkumab group and 55·6% in the ustekinumab group had at least one adverse event (AE); infections were the most frequent AE type. Overall, 6·7% (n = 9) of patients in the guselkumab group had at least one serious AE compared with 4·5% (n = 6) for the ustekinumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with ustekinumab who did not achieve an IGA of 0/1 by week 16 derived significant benefit from switching to guselkumab.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".