Maintenance of clinical response and consistent safety profile with up to 3 years of continuous treatment with guselkumab: Results from the VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2 trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term maintenance treatment is required for patients with psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis through 3 years of treatment. METHODS: In 2 ongoing, phase 3 trials of guselkumab (VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2), the proportions of patients achieving at least 90% and 100% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90 and PASI 100, respectively) and Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) scores of 0/1 and 0 were summarized for the guselkumab group (including placebo-to-guselkumab crossover). Patients who met treatment failure rules were considered nonresponders. Safety outcomes (rates/100 patient-years [PY]) were evaluated based on data pooled across studies through week 156. RESULTS: Three-year response rates for the guselkumab group in VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2, respectively, were 82.8% and 77.2% for PASI 90, 50.8% and 48.8% for PASI 100, 82.1% and 83.0% for IGA score of 0/1, and 53.1% and 52.9% for IGA score of 0. Safety event rates across studies occurred through week 156 as follows: serious adverse events, 5.68/100 PY; serious infections, 1.15/100 PY; nonmelanoma skin cancers, 0.28/100 PY; malignancies other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, 0.47/100 PY; and major adverse cardiovascular events, 0.28/100 PY. Week 156 and week 100 rates were consistent. LIMITATIONS: There was no comparator arm beyond 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Guselkumab shows durable efficacy and a consistent safety profile in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis treated for up to 3 years.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".