Consistent response to guselkumab treatment between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with psoriasis: an analysis from VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In VOYAGE 1 (NCT02207231) and VOYAGE 2 (NCT02207244), guselkumab, an interleukin-23 blocker, was safe and effective in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: = 1686) were randomized to guselkumab, placebo, or adalimumab. Efficacy assessments included Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). RESULTS: At week 16, treatment differences for guselkumab versus placebo in the Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations were 67.4 (95% confidence interval 50.4, 84.4) and 77.2 (73.5, 80.8) percentage points for IGA 0/1 and 59.2 (41.9, 76.4) and 69.2 (65.7, 72.7) percentage points for PASI 90, respectively. Treatment differences for guselkumab versus adalimumab were 25.9 (6.5, 45.3) and 17.5 (12.8, 22.3) percentage points for IGA 0/1 and 21.4 (-0.1, 42.9) and 23.5 (18.2, 28.9) percentage points for PASI 90, respectively. Week 24 results were similar. Adverse event frequency was greater in adalimumab- versus guselkumab-treated patients in the Hispanic population only through weeks 16 and 28. In both populations, DLQI 0/1 responses were greater in guselkumab-treated versus placebo- and adalimumab-treated patients at week 16 and versus adalimumab-treated patients at week 24. CONCLUSIONS: Guselkumab safety and efficacy were consistent between Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".