Effects of upadacitinib on enthesitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis: a <i>post hoc</i> analysis of SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To characterize the effect of upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (UPA15) on enthesitis in patients with PsA from the SELECT-PsA Phase 3 trials. METHODS: Patients with an inadequate response/intolerance to one or more non-biologic DMARD (SELECT-PsA 1) or one or more biologic DMARD (SELECT-PsA 2) received UPA15, adalimumab 40 mg every other week or placebo (weeks 0-24) switched to UPA15 (week 24 onward). The Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) index were used to assess improvement in enthesitis, enthesitis resolution, maintenance of enthesitis resolution and protection from enthesitis development through week 56. RESULTS: Data from 639 patients receiving UPA15 and 635 patients receiving placebo (including 317 patients who switched from placebo to UPA15) were analysed. UPA15 led to higher rates of enthesitis resolution vs placebo at week 24 (LEI: 59.8% vs 38.0%; SPARCC index: 50.6% vs 31.5%, respectively) and greater improvements in the LEI (-1.7 vs -1.0) and SPARCC index (-3.4 vs -1.9); improvements were maintained through week 56. Improvements were observed after 12 weeks of UPA15 treatment. Over 90% of patients without enthesitis (LEI = 0) at baseline receiving UPA15 were enthesitis-free at week 56, and UPA15 prevented recurrence of enthesitis at week 56 in >80% of patients with enthesitis at baseline who achieved resolution (LEI = 0) at week 24. CONCLUSIONS: UPA15 is associated with a comprehensive improvement in enthesitis, with improvements observed after 12 weeks of treatment. Additionally, treatment with UPA15 was associated with maintaining an enthesitis-free state after resolution and protection against new-onset enthesitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03104400 (SELECT-PsA 1) and NCT03104374 (SELECT-PsA 2).
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".