AB1093 LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENT IN INDIVIDUAL ACR RESPONSE CRITERIA AND RESIDUAL DISEASE IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS PATIENTS TREATED WITH GUSELKUMAB: POST HOC ANALYSIS OF A PHASE 3 RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Treatment effects on PsA joint symptoms are assessed by ACR response rates, reflecting percentages of patients (pts) meeting a composite measure of improvement from baseline (BL) at specific timepoints. Alternatively, the ACR-numeric (ACR-N) is a continuous measure of improvement based on 7 ACR components. Objectives Contrast performance of ACR response rates with ACR-N in characterizing guselkumab (GUS) treatment effect in PsA and describe duration and extent of continuous improvement with GUS using ACR-N and ACR components through week (W) 100. Methods The phase 3 DISCOVER-2 trial enrolled bio-naïve adults with active PsA (swollen and tender joint counts [SJC/TJC] ≥5, C-reactive protein [CRP] ≥0.6 mg/dL). 739 pts were randomized (1:1:1) and treated with GUS 100 mg every 4W (Q4W); GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; or placebo (PBO) with crossover to GUS Q4W at W24. ACR20/50/70 response rates through W100 were determined using non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing data; GUS Q4W/Q8W and PBO rates were compared through W24. Duration of continuous improvement over 100W of GUS was assessed by contrasting least square mean (LSM) ACR-N and ACR component values between consecutive visits. Percent changes in SJC, TJC, physician global (MDGA), pt global (PtGA), health assessment quality disease index (HAQ-DI), CRP, and pt-pain were also assessed, adjusting for treatment group, BL use of csDMARDs, and respective BL scores. Results ACR response rates were significantly greater with GUS Q4W/Q8W vs PBO by W4 (ACR20), W8 (ACR50), and W8-12 (ACR70); significant differences in ACR-N between GUS Q4W/Q8W vs PBO were observed by W2 (GUS Q4W) or W8 (GUS Q8W) (Table 1; nominal p<0.05). Similar responses were observed with GUS Q4W and Q8W. Among GUS-treated pts, nominally significant improvements comparing ACR-N scores across consecutive visits were observed by W2, with a positive trajectory through W100 (Figure 1). Individual ACR components also significantly improved by W2 and – apart from CRP levels that rapidly plateaued to means <1 mg/dL – continued to improve vs previous visit through W68-84 of GUS (nominal p<0.05). Conclusion GUS rapidly improved PsA activity whether assessed by ACR response or ACR-N. Early response was apparent across ACR components, followed by a positive trajectory through 2 years of GUS that yielded low levels of residual disease. REFERENCES: NIL. Acknowledgements: NIL. Disclosure of Interests Peter Nash Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Iain McInnes Shareholder of: Causeway Therapeutics and Evelo Compugen, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cabaletta, Compugen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Astra Zeneca, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and UCB, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Francois Nantel Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Consultant of: Janssen, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Emmanouil Rampakakis Consultant of: Janssen, Employee of: JSS Medical Research, Inc., Enrique Soriano Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".