Tildrakizumab efficacy and safety in patients with psoriasis and concomitant metabolic syndrome: <i>post hoc</i> analysis of 5‐year data from <scp>reSURFACE</scp> 1 and <scp>reSURFACE</scp> 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on long-term efficacy and safety of biologics in patients with psoriasis and metabolic syndrome (MetS), a common comorbidity. OBJECTIVES: This analysis updates tildrakizumab efficacy and safety for up to 5 years in patients with and without MetS. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 reSURFACE 1 (NCT01722331) and reSURFACE 2 (NCT01729754) trials in adult patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. Analyses included data through Week 244 from patients who continuously received tildrakizumab 100 (TIL100) or 200 mg (TIL200) and entered the extension studies, stratified by baseline MetS status. Efficacy was assessed via Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores. Safety was evaluated from exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs) of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 analyses included 26 and 44 TIL100-treated patients with MetS, 98 and 167 TIL100-treated patients without MetS, 34 and 30 TIL200-treated patients with MetS, and 111 and 130 TIL200-treated patients without MetS, respectively. There were no clinically relevant differences in PASI 75/90/100 response rates at Week 244 between patients with vs without MetS. The proportion of patients with vs without MetS achieving absolute PASI score <3 at Week 244 was 53.8% vs 69.4% and 77.3% vs 80.8% in reSURFACE 1 and 2, respectively, for TIL100-treated patients and 58.8% vs 72.1% and 63.3% vs 72.3%, respectively, for TIL200-treated patients. In both studies, median reduction from baseline PASI score at all time points in patients with vs without MetS was >83% vs >89% for TIL100 and >85% vs >90% for TIL200. Pooled EAIRs of TEAEs, serious TEAEs, and TEAEs of special interest were similar in patients with and without MetS. CONCLUSIONS: Tildrakizumab maintains efficacy and a favorable safety profile over 5 years in patients with psoriasis regardless of MetS status.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".