Disease activity and treatment efficacy using patient-level Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores from tildrakizumab phase 3 clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background It is unclear whether primary efficacy outcomes in plaque psoriasis clinical trials represent residual disease during treatment.Objectives To evaluate supplementing dichotomous efficacy with residual disease activity.Methods This post hoc analysis used pooled, patient-level data after tildrakizumab 100 mg (N = 616) or placebo (N = 309) treatment from reSURFACE 1/2 (NCT01722331/NCT01729754) phase 3 clinical trials of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.Results Median baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) was 17.9 for patients receiving tildrakizumab 100 mg. At Week 12, median PASI was 2.9, whereas dichotomous PASI 90 response rate was 36.9%, and absolute PASI <5.0, <3.0, and <1.0 were 64.0%, 50.8%, and 23.3%, respectively. At Week 28, median PASI was 1.7, whereas PASI 90 response rate was 51.9%, and absolute PASI <5.0, <3.0, and <1.0 were 75.3%, 62.8%, and 38.0%, respectively. Dermatology Life Quality Index and PASI scores were correlated through Week 28 (r = 0.51, p ≤ .0001).Conclusions Disease activity was more reliably estimated by PASI scores than percentage PASI improvement; this may partially explain efficacy disparities between clinical trials and practice. These results suggest supplementing dichotomous PASI improvement with PASI scores and consideration of patient treatment goals could facilitate clinical decisions.
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 | 0.064 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".