Continuous treatment with guselkumab maintains clinical responses through 4 years in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis: results from VOYAGE 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of guselkumab through four years of continuous treatment for psoriasis. METHODS: In the phase 3 VOYAGE 1 trial, 837 patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis were randomized to receive guselkumab 100 mg every-8-weeks, placebo, or adalimumab 40 mg every-2-weeks. Patients in the placebo and adalimumab groups crossed over to receive guselkumab at weeks 16/52, respectively; eligible patients received open-label guselkumab through week 204. Efficacy endpoints (i.e., PASI 75/90/100, IGA 0/1, and IGA 0) were analyzed in the guselkumab group using different methodologies: prespecified treatment failure rules (TFR, patients discontinued due to lack of efficacy, psoriasis worsening, or protocol-prohibited psoriasis treatment considered nonresponders); nonresponder imputation (NRI, patients with missing data counted as nonresponders); and As Observed (OBS, no imputation). Safety was evaluated through week 204. RESULTS: At week 204, PASI 90 response rates were 82.2%, 68.4%, and 84.3%, respectively, based on TFR, NRI, and OBS analyses; corresponding proportions at week 52 were 79.7%, 75.5%, and 80.6%. Similarly, PASI 75, PASI 100, IGA 0/1, and IGA 0 responses were maintained from week 52 through week 204. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: High efficacy response rates were maintained through four years of continuous guselkumab treatment for psoriasis.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".