Persistent Patient‐Level Effect of Guselkumab at Consecutive 8‐Week Dosing Visits and Over Time in Patients With Active Psoriatic Arthritis: Post Hoc Analysis of a 2‐Year, Phase 3, Randomized, Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Group-level analyses from the phase 3 DISCOVER-2 trial of guselkumab demonstrated robust and durable improvements across psoriatic arthritis (PsA) domains. To specifically evaluate continuous disease control in individual patients, persistence of clinically relevant improvements was assessed, both at consecutive guselkumab dosing visits and over time. METHODS: Post hoc analyses included biologic-naïve patients randomized to 100 mg of guselkumab at week 0, week 4, and then every 8 weeks (Q8W). Improvements in joint (minimal clinically important improvement [MCII] in Disease Activity Index for PsA [DAPSA; ≥7.25], clinical DAPSA [cDAPSA; ≥5.7]), skin (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] 0/1), and overall disease activity (patient global assessment of arthritis and psoriasis [PtGA Arthritis+Psoriasis; MCII ≥ 15 mm], PsA Disease Activity Score [PASDAS; MCII ≥ 0.8]) were assessed. Proportions of patients with maintenance of DAPSA and cDAPSA MCII at consecutive Q8W guselkumab dosing visits (ie, at weeks 4 and 12, weeks 12 and 20, etc through week 52) and patient-level durability of response through week 100 (Kaplan-Meier) were determined. RESULTS: Among 248 patients randomized to guselkumab Q8W, 93% to 99% maintained clinical improvement in joint disease at consecutive Q8W dosing visits through week 52 across time periods. Among guselkumab patients achieving MCII by week 24, estimated probabilities of maintenance of clinical improvement 100 weeks post achievement ranged from 68% (IGA 0/1) to 89% (PASDAS MCII). Median times to loss of improvement were not reached; estimated mean weeks of maintenance of improvement were 58.6, 52.4, 75.7, 83.6, and 76.7, respectively, for DAPSA, cDAPSA, IGA, PtGA Arthritis+Psoriasis, and PASDAS. CONCLUSION: Guselkumab provided highly durable patient-level improvements, both at consecutive Q8W dosing visits for joint disease activity and over time across PsA domains according to physician- and patient-driven assessments.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".