PASI Improvement in the First 12 weeks from the Phase 3 VOYAGE 1, VOYAGE 2, ORION and ECLIPSE Guselkumab Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background VOYAGE 1, VOYAGE 2, ORION, and ECLIPSE are Phase 3, double-blind trials of guselkumab 100 mg s/c at Weeks 0, 4, 12, then Q8W in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2 included placebo and active comparator groups, ORION was placebo controlled, and ECLIPSE included an active comparator control group. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate PASI improvement among subjects treated with guselkumab over the induction phase of treatment. Methods Medan (interquartile) PASI improvements were evaluated at W4, W8, and W12. Analyses were performed using treatment failure rules, which considered non-responders as those who discontinued due to lack of efficacy or worsening of PsO, or use of a protocol prohibited PsO treatment. Mean PASI improvement responses were also assessed. Results VOYAGE 1 included 329 subjects randomized to receive guselkumab, while VOYAGE 2, ORION and ECLIPSE trials included 496, 62, and 534 subjects randomized to guselkumab, respectively. At W4, median PASI improvements were 56.70%, 56.85%, 37.15% and 67.50% for VOYAGE 1, VOYAGE 2, ORION and ECLIPSE, respectively. At W8, median PASI improvements were 82.60%, 85.00%, 78.55% and 89.70% for the studies, respectively. Similarly, at W12, median PASI improvements were 92.50%, 91.95%, 93.20% and 95.70%, respectively. Conclusions Median PASI improvements of approximately 60% were observed following 1st dose of guselkumab at W4, except ORION, and increased to greater than 90% after the 2nd dose of guselkumab at W12. This analysis provides information on the onset of action of guselkumab during the first few months of treatment.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".