Secukinumab Efficacy on Enthesitis in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis: Pooled Analysis of Four Pivotal Phase III Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess the efficacy of secukinumab on axial and peripheral enthesitis in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) using pooled data from randomized controlled phase III studies. Methods In this posthoc analysis, data were pooled from patients originally randomized to secukinumab 150 mg, 300 mg, or placebo (PBO) from phase III MEASURE 1–4 studies ( ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT01358175 , NCT01649375 , NCT02008916 , and NCT02159053 ). Maastricht AS Enthesitis Score (MASES) was used for assessments of enthesitis through Week 52. Efficacy outcomes were mean change in MASES score and complete resolution (MASES = 0) of enthesitis in patients with baseline MASES > 0. Results A total of 693 (71.5%) patients had enthesitis at baseline in secukinumab 300 mg, 150 mg, and PBO groups (58 [76.3%], 355 [70.4%], and 280 [72%], respectively) out of 969 patients pooled in this analysis. At Week 16, mean changes from baseline for overall MASES and enthesitis at axial MASES sites, respectively, were as follows: –2.9 (P < 0.01) and –2.9 (P < 0.01) for secukinumab 300 mg; –2.4 (P < 0.015) and –2.3 (P < 0.05) for secukinumab 150 mg; and –1.9 and –1.8 for PBO, with improvements seen through Week 52. More than one-third of secukinumab-treated patients (300 mg: 36.2%; 150 mg: 40.8%) achieved complete resolution of enthesitis at Week 16. Conclusion Secukinumab improved enthesitis at overall MASES and axial sites in patients with AS.
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 | 0.032 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".