Trial Outcomes & Findings for Efficacy and Safety Study of Guselkumab in the Treatment of Participants With Active Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) (NCT NCT02319759)
NCT ID: NCT02319759
Last Updated: 2025-02-04
Results Overview
ACR 20 response: at least 20% improvement from baseline in both swollen joint (66 joints) and tender joint (68 joints) counts and at least 20% improvement from baseline in 3 of following 5 assessments: patient's assessment of pain (VAS: 0-100 millimeter \[mm\], 0=no pain and 100=worst possible pain), patient's global assessment of disease activity on arthritis (VAS:0-100mm, 0=excellent and 100=poor), physician's global assessment of disease activity (VAS:0-100mm; 0=no arthritis activity and 100 = extremely active arthritis), patient's assessment of physical function measured by HAQ-DI (defined as a 20-question instrument assessing 8 functional areas;derived HAQ-DI ranges from 0=no difficulty, to 3=inability to perform a task in that area) and serum CRP. Treatment Failure (TF) criteria: Discontinued study drug due to lack of efficacy or worsening of PsA, initiated or increased dose of methotrexate or oral corticosteroids, or initiated prohibited PsA treatments. FAS is full analysis set.
COMPLETED
PHASE2
149 participants
Week 24
2025-02-04
Participant Flow
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Placebo (Week 0 to Week 24)
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Placebo to Guselkumab (Week 24 to Week 56)
Participants who received placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20 received guselkumab 100 milligram (mg) subcutaneous injections at Weeks 24, 28, 36 and 44, with a final follow-up at Week 56.
|
Guselkumab (Week 0 to Week 56)
Participants were randomized to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12, 20, 28, 36 and 44, and placebo at Week 24, with a final follow-up at Week 56.
|
Placebo to Ustekinumab (Week 16 to Week 56)
Participants who were randomized to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4 and 12, and had less than (\<) 5 percent (%) improvement from baseline in both tender and swollen joint counts at Week 16 were qualified for early escape (EE) and switched to open-label ustekinumab subcutaneous injections at the approved dosage (45 mg or 90 mg) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the particular country of the study at Weeks 16, 20, 32 and 44, with a final follow-up at Week 56.
|
Guselkumab to Ustekinumab (Week 16 to Week 56)
Participants who were randomized to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and had \<5% improvement from baseline in both tender and swollen joint counts at Week 16 were qualified for EE and switched to open-label ustekinumab subcutaneous injections at the approved dosage (45 mg or 90 mg) for PsA in the particular country of the study at Weeks 16, 20, 32 and 44, with a final follow-up at Week 56.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Week 0 - 16
STARTED
|
49
|
0
|
100
|
0
|
0
|
|
Week 0 - 16
COMPLETED
|
48
|
0
|
99
|
0
|
0
|
|
Week 0 - 16
NOT COMPLETED
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Week 16 - 24
STARTED
|
31
|
0
|
89
|
17
|
10
|
|
Week 16 - 24
COMPLETED
|
29
|
0
|
86
|
17
|
10
|
|
Week 16 - 24
NOT COMPLETED
|
2
|
0
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
|
Week 24 - 56
STARTED
|
0
|
29
|
86
|
17
|
10
|
|
Week 24 - 56
COMPLETED
|
0
|
28
|
84
|
15
|
8
|
|
Week 24 - 56
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Placebo (Week 0 to Week 24)
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Placebo to Guselkumab (Week 24 to Week 56)
Participants who received placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20 received guselkumab 100 milligram (mg) subcutaneous injections at Weeks 24, 28, 36 and 44, with a final follow-up at Week 56.
|
Guselkumab (Week 0 to Week 56)
Participants were randomized to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12, 20, 28, 36 and 44, and placebo at Week 24, with a final follow-up at Week 56.
|
Placebo to Ustekinumab (Week 16 to Week 56)
Participants who were randomized to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4 and 12, and had less than (\<) 5 percent (%) improvement from baseline in both tender and swollen joint counts at Week 16 were qualified for early escape (EE) and switched to open-label ustekinumab subcutaneous injections at the approved dosage (45 mg or 90 mg) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the particular country of the study at Weeks 16, 20, 32 and 44, with a final follow-up at Week 56.
|
Guselkumab to Ustekinumab (Week 16 to Week 56)
Participants who were randomized to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and had \<5% improvement from baseline in both tender and swollen joint counts at Week 16 were qualified for EE and switched to open-label ustekinumab subcutaneous injections at the approved dosage (45 mg or 90 mg) for PsA in the particular country of the study at Weeks 16, 20, 32 and 44, with a final follow-up at Week 56.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Week 0 - 16
Lack of Efficacy
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Week 0 - 16
Not met all Inclusion Criteria
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Week 16 - 24
Lack of Efficacy
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Week 16 - 24
Lost to Follow-up
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Week 16 - 24
Withdrawal by Subject
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
|
Week 24 - 56
Adverse Event
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
|
Week 24 - 56
Lack of Efficacy
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
|
Week 24 - 56
Withdrawal by Subject
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Week 24 - 56
Lost to Follow-up
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
Baseline Characteristics
Efficacy and Safety Study of Guselkumab in the Treatment of Participants With Active Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA)
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Placebo
n=49 Participants
Participants were randomized to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20 and guselkumab 100 milligram (mg) subcutaneous injection at Weeks 24, 28, 36 and 44.
|
Guselkumab
n=100 Participants
Participants were randomized to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12, 20, 28, 36 and 44, and placebo at Week 24, with a final follow-up at Week 56.
|
Total
n=149 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Continuous
|
44.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.43 • n=99 Participants
|
47.4 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.83 • n=107 Participants
|
46.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.75 • n=206 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
25 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
48 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
73 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
24 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
52 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
76 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Region of Enrollment
Canada
|
2 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
4 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
6 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Region of Enrollment
Germany
|
2 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
2 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
4 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Region of Enrollment
Spain
|
3 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
6 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
9 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Region of Enrollment
Poland
|
12 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
13 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
25 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Region of Enrollment
Romania
|
1 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
4 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
5 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Region of Enrollment
Russia
|
25 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
64 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
89 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Region of Enrollment
United States
|
4 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
7 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
11 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24): participants randomized and received 1 dose of study drug per assigned treatment regardless of actual treatments received. Data after meeting TF criteria or after EE to ustekinumab and missing data are imputed as non-responders. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
ACR 20 response: at least 20% improvement from baseline in both swollen joint (66 joints) and tender joint (68 joints) counts and at least 20% improvement from baseline in 3 of following 5 assessments: patient's assessment of pain (VAS: 0-100 millimeter \[mm\], 0=no pain and 100=worst possible pain), patient's global assessment of disease activity on arthritis (VAS:0-100mm, 0=excellent and 100=poor), physician's global assessment of disease activity (VAS:0-100mm; 0=no arthritis activity and 100 = extremely active arthritis), patient's assessment of physical function measured by HAQ-DI (defined as a 20-question instrument assessing 8 functional areas;derived HAQ-DI ranges from 0=no difficulty, to 3=inability to perform a task in that area) and serum CRP. Treatment Failure (TF) criteria: Discontinued study drug due to lack of efficacy or worsening of PsA, initiated or increased dose of methotrexate or oral corticosteroids, or initiated prohibited PsA treatments. FAS is full analysis set.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=49 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=100 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 Response at Week 24
|
18.4 percentage of participants
|
58.0 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 24Population: Full Analysis Set (FAS) (up to Week 24). Data after EE to ustekinumab and missing data were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF). Here 'N' (number of participants analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable for this endpoint.
The PASI is a system used for assessing and grading the severity of psoriatic lesions and their response to therapy. In the PASI system, the body is divided into 4 regions: the head, trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities. Each of these areas is assessed separately for the percentage of the area involved, which translates to a numeric score that ranges from 0 (indicates no involvement) to 6 (90 percentage (%)-100% involvement), and for erythema, induration and scaling, which are each rated on a scale of 0 to 4. The PASI produces a numeric score that could range from 0 (no psoriasis) to 72 (worst condition). PASI 75 response was defined as at least a 75% reduction in PASI relative to Baseline. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=48 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=98 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI)-75 Response at Week 24
|
12.5 percentage of participants
|
78.6 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after EE to ustekinumab and missing data were imputed using LOCF. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Change from baseline in HAQ-DI score is a measure of the change in the physical function, where a negative change reflects an improvement and a positive change reflects worsening of physical function. HAQ-DI is a 20-question instrument that assesses the degree of difficulty a person has in accomplishing tasks in 8 functional areas (dressing, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reaching, gripping, and activities of daily living). Responses in each functional area are scored from 0 indicating no difficulty, to 3 indicating inability to perform a task in that area (that is, lower scores are indicative of better functioning). The total HAQ-DI score ranges from 0-24 with lower score indicating better functioning.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=49 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=100 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) Score at Week 24
|
-0.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.530
|
-0.42 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.512
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 16Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after meeting TF criteria or after EE to ustekinumab and missing data are imputed as non-responders. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
ACR 20 response is defined as at least 20 percent (%) improvement from baseline in both swollen joint (66 joints) and tender joint (68 joints) counts and at least 20% improvement from baseline in 3 of following 5 assessments: patient's assessment of pain (visual analog scale \[VAS\]: 0-100 millimeter \[mm\]; 0=no pain and 100=worst possible pain), patient's global assessment of disease activity on arthritis (VAS: 0-100 mm, 0=excellent and 100=poor), physician's global assessment of disease activity (VAS: 0-100mm; 0=no arthritis activity and 100 = extremely active arthritis), patient's assessment of physical function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI, defined as a 20-question instrument assessing 8 functional areas;derived HAQ-DI ranges from 0 indicating no difficulty, to 3 indicating inability to perform a task in that area) and serum C-Reactive Protein (CRP).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=49 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=100 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved an ACR 20 Response at Week 16
|
16.3 percentage of participants
|
60.0 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after meeting TF criteria or after EE to ustekinumab and missing data are imputed as non-responders. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
ACR 50 response is defined as at least 50 % improvement from baseline in both swollen joint (66 joints) and tender joint (68 joints) counts and at least 50% improvement from baseline in 3 of following 5 assessments: patient's assessment of pain (VAS:0-100 mm; 0=no pain and 100=worst possible pain), patient's global assessment of disease activity on arthritis (VAS:0-100mm; 0=excellent and 100=poor), physician's global assessment of disease activity (VAS: 0-100mm; 0=no arthritis activity and 100 = extremely active arthritis), patient's assessment of physical function measured by HAQ-DI (defined as a 20-question instrument assessing 8 functional areas;derived HAQ-DI ranges from 0 indicating no difficulty, to 3 indicating inability to perform a task in that area) and serum CRP.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=49 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=100 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Who an Achieved ACR 50 Response at Week 24
|
10.2 percentage of participants
|
34.0 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24) and had enthesitis at baseline. Data after EE to ustekinumab or missing data are imputed using LOCF. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Enthesitis was assessed using the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI). The LEI was developed to assess enthesitis in participants with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and evaluates the presence (score of 1) or absence of pain (score of 0) by applying local pressure to Lateral elbow epicondyle, left and right, Medial femoral condyle, left and right, and Achilles tendon insertion, left and right. LEI scores ranging from 0 (0 sites with tenderness) to 6 (worst possible score; 6 sites with tenderness).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=31 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=76 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) Scores Among Participants With Enthesitis at Week 24
|
-33.33 percent change
Interval -100.0 to 0.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -10.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24) and had dactylitis at baseline. Data after EE to ustekinumab or missing data were imputed using LOCF. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Dactylitis is characterized by swelling of the entire finger or toe. The severity of dactylitis is scored on a scale of 0-3, where 0, 1, 2, 3 indicates none, mild, moderate, severe, respectively in each digit of the hands and feet. The range of total dactylitis scores for a participant is 0-60. Higher score indicates more severe dactylitis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=23 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=58 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Scores Among Participants With Dactylitis at Baseline at Week 24
|
-33.33 percent change
Interval -66.7 to 0.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -50.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after meeting TF criteria or after EE to ustekinumab and missing data are imputed as non-responders. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
ACR 20, 50, and 70 response is defined as at least 20%, 50%, and 70% improvement from baseline in swollen joint (66 joints) and tender joint (68 joints) counts and at least 20%, 50%, and 70% improvement from baseline in 3 of following 5 assessments: patient's assessment of pain (VAS: 0-100mm, 0=no pain and 100=worst possible pain), patient's global assessment of disease activity on arthritis (VAS: 0-100mm; 0=excellent and 100=poor), physician's global assessment of disease activity (VAS: 0-100mm; 0=no arthritis activity and 100= extremely active arthritis), patient's assessment of physical function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI, defined as a 20-question instrument assessing 8 functional areas;derived HAQ-DI ranges from 0 indicating no difficulty, to 3 indicating inability to perform a task in that area) and serum C-Reactive Protein (CRP).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=49 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=100 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 4: ACR 20 responders
|
0 percentage of participants
|
21.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 4: ACR 50 responders
|
0 percentage of participants
|
1.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 4: ACR 70 responders
|
0 percentage of participants
|
0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 8: ACR 20 responders
|
22.4 percentage of participants
|
42.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 8: ACR 50 responders
|
6.1 percentage of participants
|
12.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 8: ACR 70 responders
|
2.0 percentage of participants
|
4.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 12: ACR 20 responders
|
12.2 percentage of participants
|
49.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 12: ACR 50 responders
|
6.1 percentage of participants
|
15.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 12: ACR 70 responders
|
0 percentage of participants
|
7.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 16: ACR 20 responders
|
16.3 percentage of participants
|
60.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 16: ACR 50 responders
|
6.1 percentage of participants
|
30.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 16: ACR 70 responders
|
4.1 percentage of participants
|
9.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 20: ACR 20 responders
|
22.4 percentage of participants
|
63.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 20: ACR 50 responders
|
10.2 percentage of participants
|
37.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 20: ACR 70 responders
|
2.0 percentage of participants
|
11.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 24: ACR 20 responders
|
18.4 percentage of participants
|
58.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 24: ACR 50 responders
|
10.2 percentage of participants
|
34.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 24: ACR 70 responders
|
2.0 percentage of participants
|
14.0 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56Population: Post Week 24 Efficacy analysis set: included all randomized participants who did not EE to ustekinumab at Week 24, with observed data. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints.
ACR 20, ACR 50 and ACR 70 response is defined as at least 20%, 50%, and 70% improvement from baseline in swollen joint (66 joints) and tender joint (68 joints) counts and at least 20%, 50%, and 70% improvement from baseline in 3 of following 5 assessments: patient's assessment of pain (VAS: 0-100mm, 0=no pain and 100=worst possible pain), patient's global assessment of disease activity on arthritis (VAS: 0-100mm; 0=excellent and 100=poor), physician's global assessment of disease activity (VAS; 0-100mm; 0=no arthritis activity and 100 = extremely active arthritis), patient's assessment of physical function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI, defined as a 20-question instrument assessing 8 functional areas;derived HAQ-DI ranges from 0 indicating no difficulty, to 3 indicating inability to perform a task in that area) and serum C-Reactive Protein (CRP). As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=29 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=86 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 24: ACR 50 responders
|
17.2 percentage of participants
|
39.5 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 24: ACR 20 responders
|
31.0 percentage of participants
|
66.3 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 24: ACR 70 responders
|
3.4 percentage of participants
|
16.3 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 28: ACR 20 responders
|
57.1 percentage of participants
|
75.3 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 28: ACR 50 responders
|
28.6 percentage of participants
|
44.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 28: ACR 70 responders
|
14.3 percentage of participants
|
30.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 32: ACR 20 responders
|
60.7 percentage of participants
|
75.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 32: ACR 50 responders
|
42.9 percentage of participants
|
51.2 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 32: ACR 70 responders
|
21.4 percentage of participants
|
29.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 36: ACR 20 responders
|
71.4 percentage of participants
|
73.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 36: ACR 50 responders
|
46.4 percentage of participants
|
48.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 36: ACR 70 responders
|
29.6 percentage of participants
|
31.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 44: ACR 20 responders
|
75.0 percentage of participants
|
77.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 44: ACR 50 responders
|
46.4 percentage of participants
|
46.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 44: ACR 70 responders
|
25.0 percentage of participants
|
26.2 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 56: ACR 20 responders
|
81.5 percentage of participants
|
73.5 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 56: ACR 50 responders
|
66.7 percentage of participants
|
53.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 Responses at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 56: ACR 70 responders
|
28.6 percentage of participants
|
32.5 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 12, 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after EE to ustekinumab and missing data were imputed using LOCF. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
The 7 components of ACR response are: swollen joint counts (0-66), tender joint counts (0-68), patient's assessment of pain (PAIN) (VAS:0-100mm; 0=no pain and 100=worst possible pain), patient's global assessment of disease activity (GDPT) on arthritis (VAS:0-100mm; 0=excellent and 100= poor), physician's global assessment of disease activity (GDEV) (VAS: 0-100mm; 0=no arthritis activity and 100 = extremely active arthritis), patient's assessment of physical function measured by HAQ-DI (20-question instrument assessing 8 functional areas (total score of 0-24 with lower score indicating better functioning);derived HAQ-DI ranges from 0 indicating no difficulty, to 3 indicating inability to perform a task in that area) and serum CRP.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=49 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=100 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 12 and 24
Week 12: Swollen joints (0-66)
|
-29.41 percent change
Interval -50.0 to 0.0
|
-64.50 percent change
Interval -93.8 to -30.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 12 and 24
Week 12: Tender joints (0-68)
|
-13.33 percent change
Interval -46.7 to 15.4
|
-45.80 percent change
Interval -78.0 to -25.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 12 and 24
Week 12: PAIN (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
1.79 percent change
Interval -20.0 to 15.6
|
-22.05 percent change
Interval -46.1 to -2.6
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 12 and 24
Week 12: GDPT (VAS, 0-100 mm, arthritis)
|
-11.39 percent change
Interval -41.0 to 9.2
|
-55.24 percent change
Interval -74.5 to -22.1
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 12 and 24
Week 12: GDEV (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
-11.39 percent change
Interval -41.0 to 9.2
|
-55.24 percent change
Interval -74.5 to -22.1
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 12 and 24
Week 12: HAQ-DI score (0-3)
|
0.00 percent change
Interval -25.0 to 8.3
|
-21.43 percent change
Interval -40.0 to -6.7
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 12 and 24
Week 12: CRP
|
-3.95 percent change
Interval -41.3 to 51.2
|
-42.95 percent change
Interval -69.8 to 10.7
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 12 and 24
Week 24: Swollen joints (0-66)
|
-11.76 percent change
Interval -59.1 to 11.8
|
-84.11 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -43.2
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 12 and 24
Week 24: Tender joints (0-68)
|
-5.56 percent change
Interval -53.1 to 30.8
|
-51.05 percent change
Interval -89.6 to -23.7
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 12 and 24
Week 24: PAIN (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
2.38 percent change
Interval -20.9 to 32.8
|
-32.93 percent change
Interval -70.7 to -7.6
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 12 and 24
Week 24: GDPT (VAS, 0-100 mm, arthritis)
|
-2.22 percent change
Interval -26.8 to 26.1
|
-35.53 percent change
Interval -68.2 to -7.2
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 12 and 24
Week 24: GDEV (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
-8.86 percent change
Interval -48.1 to 11.1
|
-68.47 percent change
Interval -86.6 to -37.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 12 and 24
Week 24: HAQ-DI score (0-3)
|
-10.00 percent change
Interval -27.3 to 12.5
|
-28.57 percent change
Interval -52.9 to -8.3
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 12 and 24
Week 24: CRP
|
7.94 percent change
Interval -30.3 to 93.5
|
-42.64 percent change
Interval -77.7 to 2.3
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Basline and Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, 56Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set, based on observed data. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
The 7 components of ACR response are: swollen joint counts (0-66), tender joint counts (0-68), patient's assessment of pain (PAIN) (VAS:0-100mm; 0=no pain and 100=worst possible pain), patient's global assessment of disease activity (GDPT) on arthritis (VAS:0-100mm; 0=excellent and 100= poor), physician's global assessment of disease activity (GDEV) (VAS: 0-100mm; 0=no arthritis activity and 100 = extremely active arthritis), patient's assessment of physical function measured by HAQ-DI (20-question instrument assessing 8 functional areas (total score of 0-24 with lower score indicating better functioning);derived HAQ-DI ranges from 0 indicating no difficulty, to 3 indicating inability to perform a task in that area) and serum CRP.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=29 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=86 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 28: Swollen joints (0-66)
|
-69.05 percent change
Interval -83.3 to -32.7
|
-93.75 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -60.9
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 56: Swollen joints (0-66)
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -63.6
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -75.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 24: Swollen joints (0-66)
|
-33.33 percent change
Interval -80.0 to -11.8
|
-85.71 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -63.3
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 32: Swollen joints (0-66)
|
-84.91 percent change
Interval -95.8 to -50.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -73.9
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 36: Swollen joints (0-66)
|
-79.14 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -57.7
|
-93.93 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -66.7
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 44: Swollen joints (0-66)
|
-86.11 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -64.6
|
-94.56 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -70.6
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 24: Tender joints (0-68)
|
-50.00 percent change
Interval -74.5 to -14.9
|
-72.00 percent change
Interval -90.0 to -45.8
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 28: Tender joints (0-68)
|
-65.99 percent change
Interval -83.3 to -17.0
|
-74.36 percent change
Interval -91.3 to -50.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 32: Tender joints (0-68)
|
-71.76 percent change
Interval -86.1 to -27.7
|
-79.66 percent change
Interval -92.3 to -50.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 36: Tender joints (0-68)
|
-81.67 percent change
Interval -91.2 to -27.1
|
-73.32 percent change
Interval -94.6 to -50.5
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 44: Tender joints (0-68)
|
-86.06 percent change
Interval -93.5 to -50.0
|
-77.22 percent change
Interval -97.0 to -49.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 56: Tender joints (0-68)
|
-80.00 percent change
Interval -93.8 to -51.2
|
-77.27 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -58.8
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 24: PAIN (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
-11.69 percent change
Interval -34.6 to 14.8
|
-40.98 percent change
Interval -72.3 to -9.2
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 28: PAIN (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
-23.52 percent change
Interval -59.7 to 4.4
|
-49.40 percent change
Interval -80.9 to -14.1
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 32: PAIN (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
-51.08 percent change
Interval -70.9 to -4.9
|
-50.00 percent change
Interval -78.7 to -22.2
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 36: PAIN (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
-61.13 percent change
Interval -79.6 to -11.5
|
-55.83 percent change
Interval -83.3 to -21.4
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 44: PAIN (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
-58.76 percent change
Interval -83.9 to -11.4
|
-45.50 percent change
Interval -81.0 to -12.5
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 56: PAIN (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
-71.99 percent change
Interval -85.0 to -31.5
|
-52.44 percent change
Interval -85.7 to -13.7
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 24: GDPT (VAS, 0-100 mm, arthritis)
|
-17.74 percent change
Interval -35.1 to 5.7
|
-41.98 percent change
Interval -70.4 to -8.9
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 28: GDPT (VAS, 0-100 mm, arthritis)
|
-40.73 percent change
Interval -66.5 to -5.7
|
-52.17 percent change
Interval -76.9 to -18.8
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 32: GDPT (VAS, 0-100 mm, arthritis)
|
-48.62 percent change
Interval -75.4 to -14.0
|
-56.83 percent change
Interval -78.2 to -24.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 36: GDPT (VAS, 0-100 mm, arthritis)
|
-52.17 percent change
Interval -81.0 to -29.1
|
-52.09 percent change
Interval -81.9 to -15.5
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 44: GDPT (VAS, 0-100 mm, arthritis)
|
-49.53 percent change
Interval -80.1 to -11.4
|
-47.21 percent change
Interval -82.6 to -13.6
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 56: GDPT (VAS, 0-100 mm, arthritis)
|
-68.12 percent change
Interval -87.1 to -31.8
|
-55.32 percent change
Interval -84.0 to -11.8
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 24: GDEV (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
-37.88 percent change
Interval -60.6 to -8.9
|
-72.41 percent change
Interval -89.7 to -51.5
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 28: GDEV (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
-66.07 percent change
Interval -86.6 to -48.6
|
-80.26 percent change
Interval -92.2 to -55.9
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 32: GDEV (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
-71.40 percent change
Interval -88.1 to -56.4
|
-82.14 percent change
Interval -93.3 to -60.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 36: GDEV (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
-81.82 percent change
Interval -89.2 to -65.9
|
-79.75 percent change
Interval -93.0 to -57.1
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 44: GDEV (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
-82.41 percent change
Interval -89.8 to -65.0
|
-80.00 percent change
Interval -92.1 to -61.2
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 56: GDEV (VAS, 0-100 mm)
|
-86.36 percent change
Interval -94.9 to -74.4
|
-83.93 percent change
Interval -93.0 to -54.1
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 24: HAQ-DI score (0-3)
|
-19.38 percent change
Interval -50.0 to 3.8
|
-37.50 percent change
Interval -58.8 to -12.5
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 28: HAQ-DI score (0-3)
|
-31.25 percent change
Interval -80.0 to 0.0
|
-41.05 percent change
Interval -75.0 to -10.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 32: HAQ-DI score (0-3)
|
-42.86 percent change
Interval -75.0 to -10.0
|
-41.18 percent change
Interval -80.0 to -12.5
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 36: HAQ-DI score (0-3)
|
-50.00 percent change
Interval -81.3 to -12.5
|
-37.50 percent change
Interval -80.0 to -12.5
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 44: HAQ-DI score (0-3)
|
-57.14 percent change
Interval -80.0 to -25.0
|
-37.50 percent change
Interval -80.0 to -12.5
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 56: HAQ-DI score (0-3)
|
-54.55 percent change
Interval -83.3 to -38.5
|
-39.23 percent change
Interval -80.4 to -11.8
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 24: CRP
|
6.19 percent change
Interval -30.3 to 93.5
|
-43.62 percent change
Interval -79.0 to 3.7
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 28: CRP
|
-35.63 percent change
Interval -52.7 to -1.6
|
-52.70 percent change
Interval -79.6 to -1.7
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 32: CRP
|
-42.61 percent change
Interval -60.8 to -21.8
|
-50.63 percent change
Interval -78.7 to -4.1
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 36: CRP
|
-38.90 percent change
Interval -70.0 to -13.3
|
-53.22 percent change
Interval -81.4 to -6.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 44: CRP
|
-53.43 percent change
Interval -76.9 to -36.5
|
-53.36 percent change
Interval -75.7 to -10.3
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in the ACR Components at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44 and 56
Week 56: CRP
|
-51.26 percent change
Interval -81.5 to -37.8
|
-54.91 percent change
Interval -79.3 to 25.7
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after EE to ustekinumab and missing data were imputed using LOCF. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Change from baseline in HAQ-DI score is a measure of the change in the physical function, where a negative change reflects an improvement and a positive change reflects worsening of physical function. HAQ-DI is a 20-question instrument that assesses the degree of difficulty a person has in accomplishing tasks in 8 functional areas (dressing, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reaching, gripping, and activities of daily living). Responses in each functional area are scored from 0 indicating no difficulty, to 3 indicating inability to perform a task in that area (that is, lower scores are indicative of better functioning). The total HAQ-DI score ranges from 0-24 with lower score indicating better functioning.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=49 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=100 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Response at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 4
|
-0.02 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.329
|
-0.17 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.322
|
|
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Response at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 8
|
-0.07 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.440
|
-0.32 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.442
|
|
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Response at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 12
|
-0.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.450
|
-0.33 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.390
|
|
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Response at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 16
|
-0.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.428
|
-0.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.397
|
|
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Response at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 20
|
-0.08 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.479
|
-0.41 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.453
|
|
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Response at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 24
|
-0.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.530
|
-0.42 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.512
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, 56Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Change from baseline in HAQ-DI score is a measure of the change in the physical function, where a negative change reflects an improvement and a positive change reflects worsening of physical function. HAQ-DI is a 20-question instrument that assesses the degree of difficulty a person has in accomplishing tasks in 8 functional areas (dressing, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reaching, gripping, and activities of daily living). Responses in each functional area are scored from 0, indicating no difficulty, to 3, indicating inability to perform a task in that area (that is, lower scores are indicative of better functioning). The total HAQ-DI score ranges from 0-24 with lower score indicating better functioning.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=29 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=86 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 24
|
-0.19 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.581
|
-0.46 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.530
|
|
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 28
|
-0.40 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.646
|
-0.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.571
|
|
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 32
|
-0.50 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.624
|
-0.56 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.595
|
|
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 36
|
-0.59 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.650
|
-0.53 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.618
|
|
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 44
|
-0.63 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.612
|
-0.54 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.598
|
|
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 56
|
-0.67 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.558
|
-0.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.621
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after EE to ustekinumab and missing data were imputed using LOCF. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
HAQ-DI response was defined as \>= 0.3 improvement from baseline in HAQ-DI score. HAQ-DI is a 20-question instrument that assesses the degree of difficulty a person has in accomplishing tasks in 8 functional areas (dressing, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reaching, gripping, and activities of daily living). Responses in each functional area are scored from 0 indicating no difficulty, to 3 indicating inability to perform a task in that area (that is, lower scores are indicative of better functioning). The total HAQ-DI score ranges from 0-24 with lower score indicating better functioning.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=49 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=100 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a HAQ-DI Response With Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 0.3 Improvement From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 4
|
12.2 percentage of participants
|
29.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a HAQ-DI Response With Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 0.3 Improvement From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 8
|
26.5 percentage of participants
|
43.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a HAQ-DI Response With Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 0.3 Improvement From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 12
|
22.4 percentage of participants
|
47.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a HAQ-DI Response With Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 0.3 Improvement From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 16
|
20.4 percentage of participants
|
50.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a HAQ-DI Response With Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 0.3 Improvement From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 20
|
22.4 percentage of participants
|
48.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a HAQ-DI Response With Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 0.3 Improvement From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Week 24
|
28.6 percentage of participants
|
51.0 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, 56Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
HAQ-DI response was defined as \>= 0.3 improvement from baseline in HAQ-DI score. HAQ-DI is a 20-question instrument that assesses the degree of difficulty a person has in accomplishing tasks in 8 functional areas (dressing, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reaching, gripping, and activities of daily living). Responses in each functional area are scored from 0 indicating no difficulty, to 3 indicating inability to perform a task in that area (that is, lower scores are indicative of better functioning). The total HAQ-DI score ranges from 0-24 with lower score indicating better functioning. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=29 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=86 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved an HAQ-DI Response With >= -0.3 Improvement From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 24
|
44.8 percentage of participants
|
55.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved an HAQ-DI Response With >= -0.3 Improvement From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 28
|
53.6 percentage of participants
|
60.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved an HAQ-DI Response With >= -0.3 Improvement From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 32
|
57.1 percentage of participants
|
56.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved an HAQ-DI Response With >= -0.3 Improvement From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 36
|
64.3 percentage of participants
|
59.5 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved an HAQ-DI Response With >= -0.3 Improvement From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 44
|
71.4 percentage of participants
|
61.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved an HAQ-DI Response With >= -0.3 Improvement From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 56
|
75.0 percentage of participants
|
59.0 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 4, 8, 16, 24Population: FAS (up to week 24) and who had dactylitis at baseline. Data after EE to ustekinumab or missing data were imputed using LOCF. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Dactylitis is characterized by swelling of the entire finger or toe. The severity of dactylitis is scored on a scale of 0-3, where 0, 1, 2, 3 indicates none, mild, moderate, severe, respectively in each digit of the hands and feet. The range of total dactylitis scores for a participant is 0-60. Higher score indicates more severe dactylitis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=23 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=58 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Scores at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 4
|
-33.33 percent change
Interval -50.0 to 0.0
|
-32.46 percent change
Interval -100.0 to 0.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Scores at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 8
|
-50.00 percent change
Interval -75.0 to 0.0
|
-75.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -10.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Scores at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 16
|
-50.00 percent change
Interval -80.0 to 0.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -33.3
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Scores at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 24
|
-33.33 percent change
Interval -66.7 to 0.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -50.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, 56Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data and who had dactylitis at baseline. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Dactylitis was characterized by swelling of the entire finger or toe. The severity of dactylitis is scored on a scale of 0-3, where 0, 1, 2, 3 indicates none, mild, moderate, severe, respectively in each digit of the hands and feet. The range of total dactylitis scores for a participant is 0-60. Higher score indicates more severe dactylitis. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=16 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=50 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Scores at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, 56
Week 24
|
-45.00 percent change
Interval -70.8 to 0.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -80.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Scores at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, 56
Week 28
|
-70.83 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -22.5
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -66.7
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Scores at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, 56
Week 32
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -79.2
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -70.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Scores at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, 56
Week 44
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -100.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -100.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Scores at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, 56
Week 56
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -100.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -95.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24) and who had dactylitis at baseline. Data after EE to ustekinumab or missing data were imputed using LOCF. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Dactylitis is characterized by swelling of the entire finger or toe. The severity of dactylitis is scored on a scale of 0-3, where 0, 1, 2, 3 indicates none, mild, moderate, severe, respectively in each digit of the hands and feet. The range of total dactylitis scores for a participant is 0-60. Participants with dactylitis had dactylitis score \>0. Higher score indicates more severe dactylitis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=23 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=58 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With Dactylitis at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 4
|
91.3 percentage of participants
|
72.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Dactylitis at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 8
|
69.6 percentage of participants
|
56.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Dactylitis at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 16
|
78.3 percentage of participants
|
48.3 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Dactylitis at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 24
|
82.6 percentage of participants
|
44.8 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data and who had dactylitis at baseline. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Dactylitis was characterized by swelling of the entire finger or toe. The severity of dactylitis is scored on a scale of 0-3, where 0, 1, 2, 3 indicates none, mild, moderate, severe, respectively in each digit of the hands and feet. The range of total dactylitis scores for a participant is 0-60. Higher score indicates greater degree of tenderness.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=16 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=50 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With Dactylitis at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 24
|
81.3 percentage of participants
|
40.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Dactylitis at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 28
|
62.5 percentage of participants
|
38.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Dactylitis at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 32
|
31.3 percentage of participants
|
36.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Dactylitis at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 44
|
12.5 percentage of participants
|
20.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Dactylitis at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 56
|
6.3 percentage of participants
|
25.0 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 4, 8, 16, 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24) and who had enthesitis at baseline. Data after EE to ustekinumab or missing data are imputed using LOCF. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Enthesitis was assessed using the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI). The LEI was developed to assess enthesitis in participants with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and evaluates the presence (score of 1) or absence of pain (score of 0) by applying local pressure to Lateral elbow epicondyle, left and right, Medial femoral condyle, left and right, and Achilles tendon insertion, left and right. LEI scores ranging from 0 (0 sites with tenderness) to 6 (worst possible score; 6 sites with tenderness).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=31 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=76 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in LEI Scores at Week 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 4
|
0.00 percent change
Interval -50.0 to 0.0
|
-18.33 percent change
Interval -79.2 to 0.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in LEI Scores at Week 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 8
|
0.00 percent change
Interval -60.0 to 0.0
|
-58.33 percent change
Interval -100.0 to 0.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in LEI Scores at Week 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 16
|
0.00 percent change
Interval -50.0 to 0.0
|
-50.04 percent change
Interval -100.0 to 0.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in LEI Scores at Week 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 24
|
-33.33 percent change
Interval -100.0 to 0.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to 0.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, 56Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data and who had enthesitis at baseline. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Enthesitis will be assessed using the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI). The LEI was developed to assess enthesitis in participants with PsA, and evaluates the presence (score of 1) or absence of pain (score of 0) by applying local pressure to Lateral elbow epicondyle, left and right, Medial femoral condyle, left and right, and Achilles tendon insertion, left and right. LEI scores ranging from 0 (0 sites with tenderness) to 6 (worst possible score; 6 sites with tenderness).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=18 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=67 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in LEI Scores at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 24
|
-50.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to 0.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -50.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in LEI Scores at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 28
|
-60.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -40.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -50.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in LEI Scores at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 32
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -60.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -66.7
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in LEI Scores at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 44
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -60.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -50.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in LEI Scores at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 56
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -35.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -50.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24) and who had enthesitis at baseline. Data after EE to ustekinumab or missing data were imputed using LOCF. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Enthesitis was assessed using the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI). The LEI was developed to assess enthesitis in participants with PsA, and evaluates the presence (score of 1) or absence of pain (score of 0) by applying local pressure to Lateral elbow epicondyle, left and right, Medial femoral condyle, left and right, and Achilles tendon insertion, left and right. Participants with enthesitis had LEI score \>0. LEI scores ranging from 0 (0 sites with tenderness) to 6 (worst possible score; 6 sites with tenderness).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=31 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=76 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With Enthesitis Based on LEI Score at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24 in Participants With Enthesitis at Baseline
Week 4
|
87.1 percentage of Participants
|
76.3 percentage of Participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Enthesitis Based on LEI Score at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24 in Participants With Enthesitis at Baseline
Week 24
|
71.0 percentage of Participants
|
43.4 percentage of Participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Enthesitis Based on LEI Score at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24 in Participants With Enthesitis at Baseline
Week 8
|
87.1 percentage of Participants
|
59.2 percentage of Participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Enthesitis Based on LEI Score at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24 in Participants With Enthesitis at Baseline
Week 16
|
83.9 percentage of Participants
|
53.9 percentage of Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data and who had enthesitis at baseline. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Enthesitis will be assessed using the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI). The LEI was developed to assess enthesitis in participants with PsA, and evaluates the presence (score of 1) or absence of pain (score of 0) by applying local pressure to Lateral elbow epicondyle, left and right, Medial femoral condyle, left and right, and Achilles tendon insertion, left and right. Participants with enthesitis had LEI score \>0. LEI scores ranging from 0 (0 sites with tenderness) to 6 (worst possible score; 6 sites with tenderness).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=18 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=67 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With Enthesitis Based on LEI at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56 in Participants With Enthesitis at Baseline
Week 24
|
66.7 percentage of participants
|
38.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Enthesitis Based on LEI at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56 in Participants With Enthesitis at Baseline
Week 28
|
64.7 percentage of participants
|
44.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Enthesitis Based on LEI at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56 in Participants With Enthesitis at Baseline
Week 32
|
35.3 percentage of participants
|
31.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Enthesitis Based on LEI at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56 in Participants With Enthesitis at Baseline
Week 44
|
47.1 percentage of participants
|
37.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Enthesitis Based on LEI at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56 in Participants With Enthesitis at Baseline
Week 56
|
37.5 percentage of participants
|
29.2 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 16, 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after meeting TF criteria or after EE to ustekinumab and missing data are imputed as non-responders. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Change from baseline in PASDAS score measures the change in disease activity where a negative value indicates an improvement and a positive value indicates worsening of PsA disease activity. PASDAS is a PsA disease activity score that assesses 4 domains (joints, entheses, dactylitis and quality of life) of PsA. PASDAS is a derived score combining Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (arthritis and psoriasis, on a 100-unit VAS), Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (on a 100-unit VAS), swollen joint count (66 joints), tender joint count (68 joints), CRP (mg/L), enthesitis based on LEI (scaled to a 0-6 range), dactylitis count (scoring each digit from 0-3 and recoding to 0-1, where any score \> 0 equaled 1), and the PCS score of the SF-36 health survey. The total score range is 0-10 and the cutoffs for disease activity were 3.2 (low) to 5.4 (high). Negative changes from baseline indicate improvement of overall disease activity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=49 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=100 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Psoriatic ArthritiS Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) Score at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 16
|
-0.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.099
|
-2.24 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.458
|
|
Change From Baseline in Psoriatic ArthritiS Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) Score at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 24
|
-0.49 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.333
|
-2.50 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.587
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 24, 44Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Change from baseline in PASDAS score measures the change in disease activity where a negative value indicates an improvement and a positive value indicates worsening of PsA disease activity. PASDAS is a PsA disease activity score that assesses 4 domains (joints, entheses, dactylitis and quality of life) of PsA. PASDAS is a derived score combining Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (arthritis and psoriasis, on a 100-unit VAS), Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (on a 100-unit VAS), swollen joint count (66 joints), tender joint count (68 joints), CRP (mg/L), enthesitis based on LEI (scaled to a 0-6 range), dactylitis count (scoring each digit from 0-3 and recoding to 0-1, where any score \> 0 equaled 1), and the PCS score of the SF-36 health survey. The total score range is 0-10 and the cutoffs for disease activity were 3.2 (low) to 5.4 (high). Negative changes from baseline indicate improvement of overall disease activity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=29 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=86 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in PASDAS Score at Weeks 24 and 44
Week 24
|
-1.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.440
|
-2.80 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.454
|
|
Change From Baseline in PASDAS Score at Weeks 24 and 44
Week 44
|
-3.17 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.524
|
-3.15 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.570
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 16, 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after EE to ustekinumab and missing data were imputed using LOCF. Here 'N' (number of participants analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable for this endpoint.
Change from baseline in GRACE index score measures the change in disease activity, where a negative change indicates an improvement and a positive change indicates a worsening of PsA disease activity. GRACE index was converted from Arithmetic Mean of the Desirability Function (AMDF). AMDF is calculated by transforming all variables using predefined algorithms and expressing the total score as a mean with a score range of 0 - 1, where 1 indicates a better state than 0. GRACE Index = (1 - AMDF)\*10, where GRACE index has a range of 0-10, with higher scores indicate more active disease. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=48 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=98 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in GRAppa Composite scorE (GRACE) Index Score at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 16
|
-0.29 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.174
|
-2.49 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.614
|
|
Change From Baseline in GRAppa Composite scorE (GRACE) Index Score at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 24
|
-0.35 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.394
|
-2.73 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.756
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 24, 44Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Change from baseline in GRACE index score measures the change in disease activity, where a negative change indicates an improvement and a positive change indicates a worsening of PsA disease activity. GRACE index was converted from Arithmetic Mean of the Desirability Function (AMDF). AMDF is calculated by transforming all variables using predefined algorithms and expressing the total score as a mean with a score range of 0 - 1, where 1 indicates a better state than 0. GRACE Index = (1 - AMDF)\*10, where GRACE index has a range of 0-10, with higher scores indicate more active disease.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=29 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=86 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in GRACE Index Score at Weeks 24 and 44
Week 24
|
-0.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.498
|
-2.96 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.717
|
|
Change From Baseline in GRACE Index Score at Weeks 24 and 44
Week 44
|
-3.21 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.698
|
-3.26 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.856
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 16, 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after EE to ustekinumab and missing data were imputed using LOCF. Here 'N' (number of participants analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable for this endpoint. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
The mCPDAI assessed 4 domains (joints, skin, entheses, and dactylitis). The mCPDAI scores were calculated using the following assessments: joints (66 swollen and 68 tender joint counts), HAQ-DI score, PASI, dactylitis, and enthesitis. Within each domain a score (range 0-3) was assigned, where 0= Not involved, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate and 3= Severe. The scores for each domain were then added together to give a final score range of 0 to 12. A higher score indicates more active disease activity. Negative changes from baseline indicate improvement of PsA disease activity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=48 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=98 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Modified Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (mCPDAI) Score at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 16
|
-0.5 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.88
|
-3.1 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.48
|
|
Change From Baseline in Modified Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (mCPDAI) Score at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 24
|
-0.8 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.16
|
-3.9 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.72
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 24, 44Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
The mCPDAI assessed 4 domains (joints, skin, entheses, and dactylitis). The mCPDAI scores were calculated using the following assessments: joints (66 swollen and 68 tender joint counts), HAQ-DI score, PASI, dactylitis, and enthesitis. Within each domain a score (range 0-3) was assigned, where 0= Not involved, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate and 3= Severe. The scores for each domain were then added together to give a final score range of 0 to 12. A higher score indicates more active disease activity. Negative changes from baseline indicate improvement of PsA disease activity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=29 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=86 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in mCPDAI Index Score at Weeks 24 and 44
Week 24
|
-1.4 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.27
|
-4.3 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.69
|
|
Change From Baseline in mCPDAI Index Score at Weeks 24 and 44
Week 44
|
-4.2 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.88
|
-4.8 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.55
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after early escape (EE) to ustekinumab and missing data were imputed using LOCF. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Change from baseline in DAPSA measures the change in disease activity, where a negative change indicates an improvement and a positive change indicates worsening of disease activity. DAPSA score is a the sum of swollen joint count (66 joints), tender joint count (68 joints), CRP (mg/dL), Patient's Assessment of Pain (on a 10-unit VAS;0=no pain, 10=worst possible pain), and Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (arthritis, on a 10-unit VAS; 0 to 100 centimeter \[cm\] VAS, 0=excellent and 10=poor). Cut-off values for disease activity: 0-4 remission; 5-14 low; 15-28 moderate; \>28 high.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=49 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=100 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) Score at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24
Week 4
|
-5.62 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.030
|
-10.03 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.207
|
|
Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) Score at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24
Week 8
|
-8.25 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 15.158
|
-16.65 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 15.948
|
|
Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) Score at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24
Week 12
|
-6.84 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.334
|
-18.84 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.266
|
|
Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) Score at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24
Week 16
|
-4.98 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.045
|
-21.26 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.811
|
|
Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) Score at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24
Week 20
|
-4.70 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.408
|
-22.56 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 19.918
|
|
Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) Score at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24
Week 24
|
-4.97 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 20.114
|
-23.08 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 20.206
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, 56Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Change from baseline in DAPSA measures the change in disease activity, where a negative change indicates an improvement and a positive change indicates worsening of disease activity. DAPSA score is a the sum of swollen joint count (66 joints), tender joint count (68 joints), CRP (mg/dL), Patient's Assessment of Pain (on a 10-unit VAS;0=no pain, 10=worst possible pain), and Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (arthritis, on a 10-unit VAS; 0 to 10cm VAS, 0=excellent and 10=poor). Cut-off values for disease activity: 0-4 remission; 5-14 low; 15-28 moderate; \>28 high.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=29 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=86 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in DAPSA Index Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 24
|
-12.99 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.328
|
-26.93 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.238
|
|
Change From Baseline in DAPSA Index Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 28
|
-20.85 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 21.434
|
-29.71 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.911
|
|
Change From Baseline in DAPSA Index Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 32
|
-26.12 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 21.309
|
-30.59 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 19.720
|
|
Change From Baseline in DAPSA Index Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 36
|
-27.37 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.480
|
-30.43 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.114
|
|
Change From Baseline in DAPSA Index Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 44
|
-29.54 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 20.785
|
-30.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.188
|
|
Change From Baseline in DAPSA Index Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 36, 44, and 56
Week 56
|
-31.98 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 20.359
|
-32.02 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.328
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 16 and 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after meeting TF criteria or after EE to ustekinumab and missing data are imputed as non-responders. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
MDA defines a satisfactory state of disease activity that includes 5 domains of PsA (joint symptoms, skin psoriasis, patient's perspective of pain and disease activity on arthritis and psoriasis, physical function and enthesitis). Participants were classified as achieving MDA if they fulfilled 5 of 7 outcome measures: tender joint count \<=1; swollen joint count \<=1; PASI \<=1; patient pain VAS score of \<=15 mm; patient global disease activity on arthritis and psoriasis; VAS score of \<=20 mm; Health Assessment Questionnaire score \<=0.5; and tender entheseal points \<=1.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=49 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=100 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 16
|
0 percentage of participants
|
18.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 24
|
2.0 percentage of participants
|
23.0 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 24 and 44Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
MDA defines a satisfactory state of disease activity that includes 5 domains of PsA (joint symptoms, skin psoriasis, patient's perspective of pain and disease activity on arthritis and psoriasis, physical function and enthesitis). Participants were classified as achieving MDA if they fulfilled 5 of 7 outcome measures: tender joint count \<=1; swollen joint count \<=1; PASI \<=1; patient pain VAS score of \<=15 mm; patient global disease activity on arthritis and psoriasis; VAS score of \<=20 mm; Health Assessment Questionnaire score \<=0.5; and tender entheseal points \<=1.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=29 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=86 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved MDA at Weeks 24 and 44
Week 24
|
3.4 percentage of participants
|
26.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved MDA at Weeks 24 and 44
Week 44
|
28.6 percentage of participants
|
34.5 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 16, 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after meeting TF criteria or after EE to ustekinumab and missing data are imputed as non-responders. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
SF-36 is a multi-domain instrument with 36 items to evaluate the health status and quality of life. It included 8 subscales (physical functioning, physical role functioning, bodily pain, general health perception, vitality, social functioning, emotional role functioning, and mental health), which yielded a Physical Component Summary (PCS) with score range 0-100 (higher score-better quality of life) and a Mental Component Summary (MCS) with score range 0-100 (higher score-better quality of life) in addition to subscale scores. The PCS and MCS scores are normalized to a mean of 50 and standard deviations of 10, based upon general US population norms as presented in this outcome measure. A positive change indicates improvement while a negative change indicates worsening of health status and quality of life.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=49 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=100 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in the Physical and Mental Component Summary (PCS and MCS) Scores of 36- Item Short Form Health Assessment Questionnaire (SF-36) at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 16: PCS
|
-0.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.025
|
5.86 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.315
|
|
Change From Baseline in the Physical and Mental Component Summary (PCS and MCS) Scores of 36- Item Short Form Health Assessment Questionnaire (SF-36) at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 24: PCS
|
0.46 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.513
|
6.59 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.465
|
|
Change From Baseline in the Physical and Mental Component Summary (PCS and MCS) Scores of 36- Item Short Form Health Assessment Questionnaire (SF-36) at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 16: MCS
|
1.14 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.075
|
4.80 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.952
|
|
Change From Baseline in the Physical and Mental Component Summary (PCS and MCS) Scores of 36- Item Short Form Health Assessment Questionnaire (SF-36) at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 24: MCS
|
0.42 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.737
|
4.95 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 9.064
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 24, 44Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
SF-36 is a multi-domain instrument with 36 items to evaluate the health status and quality of life. It included 8 subscales (physical functioning, physical role functioning, bodily pain, general health perception, vitality, social functioning, emotional role functioning, and mental health), which yielded a Physical Component Summary (PCS) with score range 0-100 (higher score-better quality of life) and a Mental Component Summary (MCS) with score range 0-100 (higher score-better quality of life) in addition to subscale scores. The PCS scores are normalized to a mean of 50 and standard deviations of 10, based upon general US population norms as presented in this outcome measure. A positive change indicates improvement while a negative change indicates worsening of health status and quality of life.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=29 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=86 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in the PCS Scores of SF-36 at Weeks 24 and 44
Week 24: PCS
|
2.13 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.365
|
7.40 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.448
|
|
Change From Baseline in the PCS Scores of SF-36 at Weeks 24 and 44
Week 44: PCS
|
8.02 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.647
|
8.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.783
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 24, 44Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
SF-36 is a multi-domain instrument with 36 items to evaluate the health status and quality of life. It included 8 subscales (physical functioning, physical role functioning, bodily pain, general health perception, vitality, social functioning, emotional role functioning, and mental health), which yielded a Physical Component Summary (PCS) with score range 0-100 (higher score-better quality of life) and a Mental Component Summary (MCS) with score range 0-100 (higher score-better quality of life) in addition to subscale scores. The MCS scores are normalized to a mean of 50 and standard deviations of 10, based upon general US population norms as presented in this outcome measure. A positive change indicates improvement while a negative change indicates worsening of health status and quality of life.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=29 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=86 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in the MCS Scores of SF-36 at Weeks 24 and 44
Week 24: MCS
|
0.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.770
|
5.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 9.081
|
|
Change From Baseline in the MCS Scores of SF-36 at Weeks 24 and 44
Week 44: MCS
|
5.53 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 9.013
|
4.56 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 9.548
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 16, 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after meeting TF criteria or after EE to ustekinumab and missing data are imputed as non-responders. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
SF-36 evaluates 8 individual subscales (physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health). Each 8 scales scored from 0 to 100 with higher scores= better health. The scores are normalized to a mean of 50 and standard deviations of 10, based upon general US population norms. Higher scores indicate better health. A positive change indicates improvement while a negative change indicates worsening of health status and quality of life.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=49 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=100 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: Role-physical
|
-0.09 T-score
Standard Deviation 6.813
|
4.69 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.961
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: Physical functioning
|
-0.31 T-score
Standard Deviation 6.657
|
6.30 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.255
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: Physical functioning
|
-0.04 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.227
|
6.93 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.009
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: Role-physical
|
-0.23 T-score
Standard Deviation 5.674
|
4.22 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.146
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: Bodily pain
|
0.21 T-score
Standard Deviation 5.675
|
6.56 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.832
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: Bodily pain
|
0.81 T-score
Standard Deviation 6.445
|
7.56 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.288
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: General health
|
0.74 T-score
Standard Deviation 5.857
|
6.19 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.964
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: General health
|
1.49 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.274
|
6.48 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.676
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: Vitality
|
0.73 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.779
|
5.85 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.138
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: Vitality
|
1.46 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.254
|
6.39 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.861
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: Social functioning
|
-0.82 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.272
|
5.87 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.346
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: Social functioning
|
-0.82 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.613
|
6.22 T-score
Standard Deviation 10.426
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: Role-emotional
|
1.14 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.774
|
4.77 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.643
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: Role-emotional
|
0.64 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.754
|
4.67 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.393
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: Mental health
|
1.28 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.007
|
5.10 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.683
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scales at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: Mental health
|
0.21 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.020
|
5.68 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.877
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 24, 44Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
SF-36 evaluates 8 individual subscales (physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health). Each 8 scales scored from 0 to 100 with higher scores= better health. The scores are normalized to a mean of 50 and standard deviations of 10, based upon general US population norms. Higher scores indicate better health. A positive change indicates improvement while a negative change indicates worsening of health status and quality of life.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=29 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=86 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 24: Physical functioning
|
1.09 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.953
|
7.54 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.228
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 44: Physical functioning
|
8.41 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.969
|
8.50 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.633
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 24: Role-physical
|
1.92 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.119
|
5.74 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.480
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 44: Role-physical
|
6.82 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.198
|
6.66 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.664
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 24: Bodily pain
|
2.88 T-score
Standard Deviation 6.856
|
8.39 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.332
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 44: Bodily pain
|
9.42 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.914
|
8.95 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.952
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 24: General health
|
1.94 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.185
|
7.05 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.657
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 44: General health
|
6.25 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.998
|
6.74 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.496
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 24: Vitality
|
1.49 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.387
|
7.39 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.727
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 44: Vitality
|
7.53 T-score
Standard Deviation 10.802
|
7.11 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.891
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 24: Social functioning
|
-0.18 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.776
|
6.41 T-score
Standard Deviation 10.919
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 44: Social functioning
|
6.09 T-score
Standard Deviation 10.151
|
5.73 T-score
Standard Deviation 10.357
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 24: Role-emotional
|
2.11 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.891
|
5.30 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.013
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 44: Role-emotional
|
5.47 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.160
|
5.68 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.635
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 24: Mental health
|
0.19 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.465
|
6.30 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.994
|
|
Change From Baseline in Norm-based SF-36 Scale at Week 24 and 44
Week 44: Mental health
|
7.29 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.952
|
5.42 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.978
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 16, 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after meeting TF criteria or after EE to ustekinumab and missing data are imputed as non-responders. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
RAPID3 is a multi-dimensional health assessment questionnaire that was designed for use in routine clinical care. Three core data set for function, pain, and patient global estimate of disease activity were recorded. Each was scored 0-10 and the score ranges from 0 to 30 with higher scores indicating worse condition. A negative change from baseline indicates improvement in condition.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=49 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=100 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) Score at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 16
|
-0.19 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.405
|
-5.41 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.307
|
|
Change From Baseline in Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) Score at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 24
|
-0.57 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.123
|
-5.81 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.968
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 24, 44Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
RAPID3 is a multi-dimensional health assessment questionnaire that was designed for use in routine clinical care. Three core data set for function, pain, and patient global estimate of disease activity were recorded. Each was scored 0-10 and the score ranges from 0 to 30 with higher scores indicating worse condition. A negative change from baseline indicates improvement in condition.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=29 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=86 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in RAPID3 Score at Weeks 24 and 44
Week 24
|
-2.28 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.244
|
-6.36 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.205
|
|
Change From Baseline in RAPID3 Score at Weeks 24 and 44
Week 44
|
-7.60 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.588
|
-7.48 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.310
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 16 and 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after EE to ustekinumab and missing data were imputed using LOCF. Here 'N' (number of participants analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable for this endpoint.
The PASI is a system used for assessing and grading the severity of psoriatic lesions and their response to therapy. In the PASI system, the body is divided into 4 regions: the head, trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities. Each of these areas is assessed separately for the percentage of the area involved, which translates to a numeric score that ranges from 0 (indicates no involvement) to 6 (90 percentage (%)-100% involvement), and for erythema, induration and scaling, which are each rated on a scale of 0 to 4. The PASI produces a numeric score that could range from 0 (no psoriasis) to 72. PASI 50, 75, 90, and 100 responses were defined as at least a 50%, 75%, 90%, and 100% reduction in PASI relative to Baseline respectively. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=48 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=98 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 16: PASI 50 responders
|
27.1 percentage of participants
|
81.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 16: PASI 75 responders
|
8.3 percentage of participants
|
71.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 16: PASI 90 responders
|
6.3 percentage of participants
|
53.1 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 16: PASI 100 responders
|
6.3 percentage of participants
|
31.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 24: PASI 50 responders
|
29.2 percentage of participants
|
86.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 24: PASI 75 responders
|
12.5 percentage of participants
|
78.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 24: PASI 90 responders
|
6.3 percentage of participants
|
66.3 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 16 and 24
Week 24: PASI 100 responders
|
6.3 percentage of participants
|
39.8 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
The PASI is a system used for assessing and grading the severity of psoriatic lesions and their response to therapy. In the PASI system, the body is divided into 4 regions: the head, trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities. Each of these areas is assessed separately for the percentage of the area involved, which translates to a numeric score that ranges from 0 (indicates no involvement) to 6 (90 percentage (%)-100% involvement), and for erythema, induration and scaling, which are each rated on a scale of 0 to 4. The PASI produces a numeric score that could range from 0 (no psoriasis) to 72. PASI 50, 75, 90, and 100 responses were defined as at least a 50%, 75%, 90%, and 100% reduction in PASI relative to Baseline respectively.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=29 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=86 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 56: PASI 50 responders
|
96.3 percentage of participants
|
92.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 56: PASI 75 responders
|
81.5 percentage of participants
|
85.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 24: PASI 50 responders
|
37.9 percentage of participants
|
89.5 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 24: PASI 75 responders
|
20.7 percentage of participants
|
82.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 24: PASI 90 responders
|
10.3 percentage of participants
|
70.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 24: PASI 100 responders
|
10.3 percentage of participants
|
44.2 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 28: PASI 50 responders
|
60.7 percentage of participants
|
95.2 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 28: PASI 75 responders
|
35.7 percentage of participants
|
84.5 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 28: PASI 90 responders
|
25.0 percentage of participants
|
72.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 28: PASI 100 responders
|
17.9 percentage of participants
|
53.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 32: PASI 50 responders
|
78.6 percentage of participants
|
92.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 32: PASI 75 responders
|
67.9 percentage of participants
|
86.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 32: PASI 90 responders
|
50.0 percentage of participants
|
80.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 32: PASI 100 responders
|
35.7 percentage of participants
|
62.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 44: PASI 50 responders
|
89.3 percentage of participants
|
94.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 44: PASI 75 responders
|
82.1 percentage of participants
|
90.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 44: PASI 90 responders
|
75.0 percentage of participants
|
81.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 44: PASI 100 responders
|
67.9 percentage of participants
|
63.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 56: PASI 90 responders
|
74.1 percentage of participants
|
78.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved a PASI 50, PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100 Response at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 56: PASI 100 responders
|
55.6 percentage of participants
|
57.3 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 4, 8, 16, 24Population: FAS (up to Week 24). Data after EE to ustekinumab and missing data were imputed using LOCF. Here 'N' (number of participants analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable for this endpoint.
The PASI is a system used for assessing and grading the severity of psoriatic lesions and their response to therapy. In the PASI system, the body is divided into 4 regions: the head, trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities. Each of these areas is assessed separately for the percentage of the area involved, which translates to a numeric score that ranges from 0 (indicates no involvement) to 6 (90 percentage (%)-100% involvement), and for erythema, induration and scaling, which are each rated on a scale of 0 to 4. The PASI produces a numeric score that could range from 0 (no psoriasis) to 72. A negative percent change from baseline indicates the percent improvement from baseline in the severity of psoriatic lesions. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=48 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=98 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in PASI Score at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 4
|
0.00 percent change
Interval -16.0 to 17.0
|
-41.49 percent change
Interval -64.7 to -12.2
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in PASI Score at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 8
|
1.58 percent change
Interval -20.2 to 24.9
|
-66.67 percent change
Interval -93.6 to -41.9
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in PASI Score at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 16
|
-1.10 percent change
Interval -50.0 to 35.9
|
-90.55 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -65.6
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in PASI Score at Weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24
Week 24
|
-7.89 percent change
Interval -54.2 to 34.0
|
-96.21 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -82.6
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, 56Population: Post Week 24 efficacy analysis set with observed data. Here 'n' (number analyzed) included all participants who were evaluable at specified timepoints. As planned, results data was analyzed and reported for the specified arms for this outcome measure.
The PASI is a system used for assessing and grading the severity of psoriatic lesions and their response to therapy. In the PASI system, the body is divided into 4 regions: the head, trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities. Each of these areas is assessed separately for the percentage of the area involved, which translates to a numeric score that ranges from 0 (indicates no involvement) to 6 (90 percentage (%)-100% involvement), and for erythema, induration and scaling, which are each rated on a scale of 0 to 4. The PASI produces a numeric score that could range from 0 (no psoriasis) to 72. A negative percent change from baseline indicates the percent improvement from baseline in the severity of psoriatic lesions.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=29 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
Guselkumab
n=86 Participants
Participants were randomized at Week 0 to receive guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in PASI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 24
|
-34.26 percent change
Interval -72.9 to 26.9
|
-97.85 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -87.2
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in PASI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 28
|
-57.69 percent change
Interval -94.3 to -39.4
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -88.2
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in PASI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 32
|
-90.61 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -62.5
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -94.0
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in PASI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 44
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -91.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -95.4
|
|
Percent Change From Baseline in PASI Score at Weeks 24, 28, 32, 44, and 56
Week 56
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -91.0
|
-100.00 percent change
Interval -100.0 to -91.4
|
Adverse Events
Placebo (Week 0 to Week 24)
Placebo to Guselkumab (Week 24 to Week 56)
Guselkumab (Week 0 to Week 56)
Placebo to Ustekinumab (EE: Week 16 to Week 56)
Guselkumab to Ustekinumab (EE:Week 16 to Week 56)
Serious adverse events
| Measure |
Placebo (Week 0 to Week 24)
n=49 participants at risk
Participants received placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20. Data through Week 24 prior to receiving guselkumab or through Week 16 prior to receiving ustekinumab (for participants who early escaped at week 16) were included.
|
Placebo to Guselkumab (Week 24 to Week 56)
n=29 participants at risk
Participants who received placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20 received guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Week 24, 28, 36 and 44. Data from the first administration of guselkumab (Week 24) through Week 56 (final follow-up) were included.
|
Guselkumab (Week 0 to Week 56)
n=100 participants at risk
Participants received guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12, 20, 28, 36 and 44, and matched placebo at Week 24. Data from Week 0 through Week 56 (final follow-up) or through Week 16 prior to receiving ustekinumab (for participants who early escaped at week 16) were included.
|
Placebo to Ustekinumab (EE: Week 16 to Week 56)
n=17 participants at risk
Participants who received placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and were qualified to early escape (EE) at Week 16 received open-label ustekinumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 16, 20, 32 and 44 at the approved dosage for PsA in the particular country of the study. Data from the first administration of ustekinumab (Week 16) through Week 56 (final follow-up) were included.
|
Guselkumab to Ustekinumab (EE:Week 16 to Week 56)
n=10 participants at risk
Participants who received guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and were qualified to early escape (EE) at Week 16 received open-label ustekinumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 16, 20, 32 and 44 at the approved dosage for PsA in the particular country of the study. Data from the first administration of ustekinumab (Week 16) through Week 56 (final follow-up) were included.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cardiac disorders
Myocardial Infarction
|
0.00%
0/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
1.0%
1/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Eye disorders
Pupils Unequal
|
0.00%
0/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
1.0%
1/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Eye disorders
Ulcerative Keratitis
|
0.00%
0/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
1.0%
1/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Pneumonia
|
0.00%
0/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
1.0%
1/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Joint Injury
|
2.0%
1/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Radius Fracture
|
0.00%
0/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
1.0%
1/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Osteoarthritis
|
0.00%
0/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
1.0%
1/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
Other adverse events
| Measure |
Placebo (Week 0 to Week 24)
n=49 participants at risk
Participants received placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20. Data through Week 24 prior to receiving guselkumab or through Week 16 prior to receiving ustekinumab (for participants who early escaped at week 16) were included.
|
Placebo to Guselkumab (Week 24 to Week 56)
n=29 participants at risk
Participants who received placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and 20 received guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Week 24, 28, 36 and 44. Data from the first administration of guselkumab (Week 24) through Week 56 (final follow-up) were included.
|
Guselkumab (Week 0 to Week 56)
n=100 participants at risk
Participants received guselkumab 100 mg subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12, 20, 28, 36 and 44, and matched placebo at Week 24. Data from Week 0 through Week 56 (final follow-up) or through Week 16 prior to receiving ustekinumab (for participants who early escaped at week 16) were included.
|
Placebo to Ustekinumab (EE: Week 16 to Week 56)
n=17 participants at risk
Participants who received placebo matched to guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and were qualified to early escape (EE) at Week 16 received open-label ustekinumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 16, 20, 32 and 44 at the approved dosage for PsA in the particular country of the study. Data from the first administration of ustekinumab (Week 16) through Week 56 (final follow-up) were included.
|
Guselkumab to Ustekinumab (EE:Week 16 to Week 56)
n=10 participants at risk
Participants who received guselkumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 0, 4, 12 and were qualified to early escape (EE) at Week 16 received open-label ustekinumab subcutaneous injections at Weeks 16, 20, 32 and 44 at the approved dosage for PsA in the particular country of the study. Data from the first administration of ustekinumab (Week 16) through Week 56 (final follow-up) were included.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Blood and lymphatic system disorders
Leukopenia
|
0.00%
0/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
3.4%
1/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
5.0%
5/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Bronchitis
|
2.0%
1/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
2.0%
2/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
5.9%
1/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Cystitis
|
0.00%
0/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
5.9%
1/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Nasopharyngitis
|
10.2%
5/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
10.0%
10/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
11.8%
2/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Urinary Tract Infection
|
0.00%
0/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
2.0%
2/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
5.9%
1/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Investigations
Alanine Aminotransferase Increased
|
2.0%
1/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
6.9%
2/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
4.0%
4/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Investigations
Aspartate Aminotransferase Increased
|
0.00%
0/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
6.9%
2/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
3.0%
3/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
10.0%
1/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Investigations
Weight Increased
|
2.0%
1/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
5.9%
1/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Osteoarthritis
|
0.00%
0/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
10.0%
1/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Headache
|
0.00%
0/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
5.9%
1/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Depressive Symptom
|
0.00%
0/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
5.9%
1/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Oropharyngeal Pain
|
0.00%
0/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
10.0%
1/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Upper Respiratory Tract Inflammation
|
0.00%
0/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
1.0%
1/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
5.9%
1/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Psoriasis
|
2.0%
1/49 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/29 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
1.0%
1/100 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
5.9%
1/17 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
0.00%
0/10 • Up to Week 56
The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study agent and were analyzed based on the actual treatment received.
|
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee If an investigator wishes to publish information from the study, a copy of the manuscript must be provided to the sponsor for review at least 60 days before submission for publication or presentation. If requested by the sponsor in writing, the investigator will withhold such publication for up to an additional 60 days.
- Publication restrictions are in place
Restriction type: OTHER