Deucravacitinib versus placebo and apremilast in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: Efficacy and safety results from the 52-week, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective, well-tolerated oral psoriasis treatments are needed. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of deucravacitinib, an oral, selective, allosteric tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, versus placebo and apremilast in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: Participants were randomized 2:1:1 to deucravacitinib 6 mg every day (n = 332), placebo (n = 166), or apremilast 30 mg twice a day (n = 168) in the 52-week, double-blinded, phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial (NCT03624127). Coprimary end points included response rates for ≥75% reduction from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) and static Physician's Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (sPGA 0/1) with deucravacitinib versus placebo at week 16. RESULTS: At week 16, response rates were significantly higher with deucravacitinib versus placebo or apremilast for PASI 75 (194 [58.4%] vs 21 [12.7%] vs 59 [35.1%]; P < .0001) and sPGA 0/1 (178 [53.6%] vs 12 [7.2%] vs 54 [32.1%]; P < .0001). Efficacy improved beyond week 16 and was maintained through week 52. Adverse event rates with deucravacitinib were similar to those with placebo and apremilast. LIMITATIONS: One-year duration, limited racial diversity. CONCLUSION: Deucravacitinib was superior to placebo and apremilast across multiple efficacy end points and was well tolerated in moderate to severe plaque 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".