MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405665962 · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljae502

Guselkumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in paediatric patients: results of the phase III randomized placebo-controlled PROTOSTAR study

2024· article· en· W4405665962 on OpenAlexaff
Vimal H Prajapati, Marieke M.B. Seyger, Dagmar Wilsmann‐Theis, Erzsébet Szakos, Andrzej Kaszuba, Bart van Hartingsveldt, Meg Jett, Shu Li, Vikash Sinha, Herta Crauwels, Cynthia Marie Carver DeKlotz, Amy S. Paller

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPsoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis
Canadian institutionsProbity Medical ResearchCalgary Laboratory ServicesSKiN HealthUniversity of Calgary
FundersJanssen Research and DevelopmentLEO PharmaJanssen Scientific AffairsCelgeneAmgenPfizerEli Lilly and CompanyLanguage Literacy and Culture, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboPsoriasisInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialPsoriasis Area and Severity IndexDermatologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: No currently approved treatment for paediatric plaque psoriasis selectively targets interleukin (IL)-23. In adults, guselkumab (a selective IL-23 inhibitor that targets the p19 subunit) demonstrated substantial efficacy with a favourable safety profile in treating moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of guselkumab in paediatric patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PROTOSTAR; NCT03451851). METHODS: This phase III randomized placebo-controlled study enrolled patients aged ≥ 6 to < 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. In part 1 [week (W)0-W16], patients were randomized to receive guselkumab, placebo or open-label etanercept (active reference arm). At W16, part 1 patients entered a guselkumab withdrawal/retreatment period or continued/crossed over to receive guselkumab (W16-W52). Co-primary endpoints were Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) 0/1 and ≥ 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) [or U.S. Food and Drug Administration-required ≥ 90% improvement in PASI (PASI 90) co-primary endpoint] responses at W16 of part 1. Part 2 evaluated continuous open-label guselkumab treatment (W0-W52). RESULTS: Of 92 and 28 patients enrolled in parts 1 and 2, respectively, 86% and 96% continued treatment through W52. In part 1, at W16, significantly higher proportions of guselkumab-treated compared with placebo-treated patients achieved IGA 0/1 (66% vs. 16%; P < 0.001), PASI 75 (76% vs. 20%; P < 0.001) and PASI 90 (56% vs. 16%; P < 0.01). More than one-third of guselkumab-treated patients achieved clear skin [IGA 0: 39% vs. 4% placebo; 100% improvement in PASI (PASI 100): 34% vs. 0% placebo; both P < 0.01]. In part 2, at W52, 86%, 93% and 82% of guselkumab-treated patients achieved IGA 0/1, PASI 75 and PASI 90, respectively. Through W16 of part 1, 42%, 68% and 58% of guselkumab-, placebo- and etanercept-treated patients, respectively, experienced adverse events (AEs). Rates of AEs with guselkumab were similar through W52 in parts 1 and 2; common AEs included nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection and COVID-19. No serious or opportunistic infections occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Guselkumab demonstrated significant and clinically meaningful responses in paediatric patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, and all co-primary and major secondary endpoints were met. Safety outcomes for guselkumab in paediatric patients were similar to placebo and consistent with the established profile in adults, with no new safety signals identified. These findings support the use of guselkumab to treat paediatric 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicPsoriasis: Treatment and PathogenesisFrench-language works237,207