MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416140920 · doi:10.25251/2q1bnf78

Real-World Effectiveness of Guselkumab in Patients With Psoriasis: Data From the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR)

2025· article· W4416140920 on OpenAlexaff
Luigi Naldi, Ahlem Azzabi, Steven Fakharzadeh, Wayne Gulliver, Fowzia Ibrahim, Yerkebulan Kambarov, Kimberly Parnell Lafferty, Wayne Langholff, Yayoi Tada, Miriam Zimmermann, Bruce Strober

Bibliographic record

VenueSKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPsoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsoriasisPsoriasis Area and Severity IndexBody surface areaSeverity of illnessLongitudinal studyDiseaseClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR; NCT00508547) is a large, international, prospective, longitudinal, disease-based registry that enrolled patients with psoriasis (PsO) who were receiving, or were candidates for, systemic therapy. The aims of the Registry are to assess the long-term safety and improve understanding of real-world biologic use in patients with PsO. Objective The objective of this analysis is to describe real-world effectiveness of guselkumab in patients with psoriasis. Methods Disease characteristics, absolute Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score, percentage of body surface area (BSA) involvement, and change from baseline in PASI score and BSA through two years are reported for patients with PsO treated with guselkumab (GUS). Some patients initiated GUS ahead of enrolment in the registry. Results As of 12 July 2024, 2198 patients who initiated GUS prior to, or at, enrolment were included with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) duration of follow-up of 3.02 (1.08) years. Of these, 1184 (53.9%) were from North America, 672 (30.6%) were from Europe and 342 (15.6%) were from the Asia-Pacific region. Through 2 years of treatment, 244 (11.1%) patients withdrew from the registry, with the most common reason for withdrawal being patient choice (n=96, 39.3%) and 48 (19.7%) patients being lost to follow-up. Most patients had plaque PsO (2140, 97.4%) with a mean (SD) baseline PASI score of 6.0 (7.02) and a mean (SD) BSA involvement of 8.9% (12.72%). At baseline, 427 (21.1%) patients had a PASI score of 0, 188 (9.3%) had PASI >0–<1, 199 (9.8%) had PASI ≥1–<2, 160 (7.9%) had PASI ≥2–<3, 231 (11.4%) had PASI ≥3–<5 and 816 (40.4%) had PASI ≥5. Approximately 1 in 4 GUS patients had a PASI score of >10 (n=496; 24.5%). At Month 6, the mean (SD) change from baseline in PASI score was −4.5 (7.06) and the mean (SD) change from baseline in %BSA was −6.6 (12.41), corresponding to a mean (SD) absolute PASI score of 1.6 (3.10) and a mean (SD) BSA of 2.3% (5.81%), respectively. Improvements were maintained through 1 year of therapy; at Month 12, the mean (SD) change from baseline in PASI score was −4.4 (6.96) and in %BSA was −6.8 (12.26), corresponding to mean (SD) absolute PASI score of 1.5 (2.74) and a mean (SD) BSA of 1.9% (4.79%). Improvements were maintained through 2 years of treatment, with a mean (SD) absolute PASI score of 1.5 (3.13) and a mean (SD) BSA of 2.1% (6.08%), respectively. Conclusion: Patients in this large real-world registry experienced improvements in PsO severity while receiving treatment with GUS. Improvements were maintained through 2 years of treatment, supporting the use of GUS as a highly effective long-term option for patients with PsO.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSKIN The Journal of Cutaneous MedicineSame topicPsoriasis: Treatment and PathogenesisFrench-language works237,207