Association between enthesitis/dactylitis resolution and patient-reported outcomes in guselkumab-treated patients with psoriatic arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between enthesitis resolution (ER) and dactylitis resolution (DR) and meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among biologic-naïve patients with PsA receiving guselkumab in the DISCOVER-2 study. METHODS: Enthesitis and dactylitis, characteristic lesions of PsA, were evaluated by independent assessors using the Leeds Enthesitis Index (range, 0-6) and Dactylitis Severity Score (range, 0-60). Proportions of patients with ER or DR (score = 0) among those with score > 0 at baseline were determined at weeks 24, 52, and 100. PROs included: fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-Fatigue]), pain (0-100 visual analog scale), physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index [HAQ-DI]), and health-related quality of life (36-item Short-Form Health Survey physical/mental component summary [SF-36 PCS/MCS]). Meaningful responses were defined as: improvements of ≥ 4 for FACIT-Fatigue, ≥ 0.35 for HAQ-DI, and ≥ 5 for SF-36 PCS/MCS and absolute scores of ≤ 15 for minimal pain and ≤ 0.5 for normalized HAQ-DI. Associations between ER/DR status and PRO response status were tested using a Chi-square test. RESULTS: Guselkumab-treated patients with ER were more likely than those without ER to achieve minimal pain (p < 0.001), normalized HAQ-DI (p < 0.001), and PCS response (p < 0.05) at weeks 24, 52, and 100. Patients with DR were more likely than those without DR to achieve FACIT-Fatigue response at week 24 and week 52 (both p ≤ 0.01) and minimal pain at week 24 and normalized HAQ-DI at week 52 (both p ≤ 0.03). CONCLUSION: In biologic-naïve patients with active PsA treated with guselkumab, achieving ER or DR was associated with durable improvements in selected PROs, including those of high importance to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov ) NCT03158285; Registered: May 16, 2017. Key Points • At week 100, 65% and 76% of guselkumab-treated patients achieved enthesitis and dactylitis resolution (ER/DR). • Achieving ER was associated with achieving DR and vice versa through the end of study. • Achieving ER or DR was associated with durable and meaningful improvements in selected patient-reported outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".