Upadacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis and inadequate response to biologics: 3-year results from the open-label extension of the randomised controlled phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and an inadequate response (IR) to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) who completed up to 152 weeks of treatment in the SELECT-PsA 2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03104374). METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive blinded upadacitinib 15 or 30 mg once daily (QD), or placebo for 24 weeks followed by upadacitinib 15 or 30 mg QD. After 56 weeks, patients were eligible to enter an open-label extension (OLE) in which they continued their assigned dose of upadacitinib. Efficacy and safety were assessed through 152 weeks. A subanalysis of patients with IR to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) was also conducted. RESULTS: In total, 450 patients entered the OLE and 358 completed 152 weeks of treatment. Improvements in efficacy outcomes observed at week 56, including the proportion of patients achieving: 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria, minimal disease activity, and 75/90/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, were maintained through week 152. Efficacy outcomes in the TNFi-IR subgroup were similar to those reported in the overall population. Upadacitinib was well tolerated throughout long-term treatment, with no cumulative adverse effects observed through 152 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of upadacitinib was maintained up to 152 weeks of treatment in this highly treatment-refractory population of patients with PsA. The long-term safety profile of upadacitinib 15 mg was consistent with its known safety profile across indications; no new safety signals were identified.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".