Guselkumab for the treatment of patients with moderate‐to‐severe hidradenitis suppurativa: A phase 2 randomized study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes substantial physical, emotional and psychological burdens. Guselkumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the p19 subunit of interleukin-23, has demonstrated high levels of efficacy in the treatment of inflammatory diseases, including psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of guselkumab on the treatment of HS, a phase 2, multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, proof-of-concept study was conducted. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age with moderate-to-severe HS for ≥1 year were randomized to (1) guselkumab 200 mg by subcutaneous (SC) injection every 4 weeks (q4w) through Week 36 (guselkumab SC); (2) guselkumab 1200 mg intravenously (IV) q4w for 12 weeks, then switched to guselkumab 200 mg SC q4w from Weeks 12 through 36 (guselkumab IV); or (3) placebo for 12 weeks, with re-randomization to guselkumab 200 mg SC q4w at Weeks 16 through 36 (placebo → guselkumab 200 mg) or guselkumab 100 mg SC at Weeks 16, 20, 28 and 36 and placebo at Weeks 24 and 32 (placebo → guselkumab 100 mg). End points included HS clinical response (HiSCR) and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Although guselkumab SC or guselkumab IV resulted in numerically higher HiSCR versus placebo at Week 16 (50.8%, 45.0%, 38.7%, respectively), statistical significance was not achieved. Numerically greater improvements in patient-reported outcomes were also observed for guselkumab SC and guselkumab IV versus placebo at Week 16. Through Week 40, no clear differences to suggest a dose response were observed for HiSCR and patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite modest improvements, the primary end point was not met and the overall findings do not support the efficacy of guselkumab in the treatment of HS. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT03628924.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 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".