Deucravacitinib onset of action and maintenance of response in phase 3 plaque psoriasis trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: In the global phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 trials, significantly greater proportions of deucravacitinib-treated patients met the coprimary endpoints (PASI 75, sPGA 0/1) at Week 16 versus placebo or apremilast-treated patients. This analysis evaluated onset of action and maintenance of response in patients randomized to deucravacitinib and placebo only. METHODS: Adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis at baseline were randomized 1:2:1 to oral placebo, deucravacitinib, or apremilast. Onset of action was determined through changes from baseline in mean PASI, BSA, BSA × sPGA, and DLQI. Maintenance of response was assessed using PASI 75, PASI 90, PASI 100, sPGA 0/1, and sPGA 0 response rates through Week 52 in patients who were treated continuously with deucravacitinib, crossed over from placebo to deucravacitinib at Week 16, or received deucravacitinib and achieved PASI 75 by Week 24. RESULTS: Deucravacitinib showed significantly higher increases in mean percent change from baseline in PASI versus placebo by Week 1. Significant improvement versus placebo was observed in all other efficacy measures by Week 8. Efficacy with deucravacitinib was maintained through Week 52. CONCLUSION: Deucravacitinib displayed efficacy as early as 1 week and clinical responses were maintained over 52 weeks in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".