Inhibition of structural damage progression with the selective interleukin-23 inhibitor guselkumab in participants with active PsA: results through week 24 of the phase 3b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled APEX study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The APEX study evaluated the effects of guselkumab, a fully human, dual-acting monoclonal antibody able to bind CD64 and selectively inhibit the interleukin (IL)-23p19 subunit, on clinical and radiographic outcomes in active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: APEX (ongoing, phase 3b, double-blind, placebo-controlled) randomised (5:7:7) biologic-naïve adults with active PsA (≥3 tender, ≥3 swollen joints; C-reactive protein ≥0.3 mg/dL; ≥2 erosive joints) to subcutaneous guselkumab 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W); guselkumab 100 mg at week 0, week 4, then every 8 weeks (Q8W); or placebo every 4 weeks. Primary (proportion of participants achieving ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria [ACR20]) and major secondary (total PsA-modified van der Heijde-Sharp [vdH-S] score least squares mean [LSM] change from baseline) endpoints at week 24 were multiplicity-controlled for comparing each guselkumab group versus placebo. RESULTS: Among 1020 participants (Q4W: 273; Q8W: 371; placebo: 376), significantly greater proportions of participants receiving guselkumab Q4W (66.6%) and Q8W (68.3%) versus placebo (47.0%) achieved ACR20 at week 24 (both P < 0.001). Baseline mean total vdH-S scores were 26.7 to 27.7 across groups; guselkumab Q4W- and Q8W-treated participants exhibited significantly lower rates of radiographic progression versus placebo at week 24 (total vdH-S score LSM change: 0.55 and 0.54 vs 1.35; P = 0.002 and P < 0.001, respectively). Through week 24, 38.2%, 42.5%, and 37.3% of participants receiving guselkumab Q4W, Q8W, and placebo, respectively, had ≥1 adverse event, with no new safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: Guselkumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody able to bind CD64 and simultaneously inhibit the IL-23p19 subunit, provided significantly higher rates of clinical improvement and significant inhibition of structural damage progression versus placebo, with no new safety signals, at week 24 in biologic-naïve participants with active and erosive PsA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".