Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32173916›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV2020

Efficacy of guselkumab in a subpopulation with pustulotic arthro-osteitis through week 52: an exploratory analysis of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in Japanese patients with palmoplantar pustulosis.

T Yamamoto, K Fukuda, A Morita, T Kimura, H Morishima, R Goto, R Zheng, T Terui

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Ethnic Differences of Palmoplantar Pustulosis: A Systematic Review.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Guselkumab for the Treatment of Palmoplantar Pustulosis: A Japanese Perspective.Clinical pharmacology : advances and applications · 2021
    Review
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

T YamamotoDepartment of Dermatology, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan.
K FukudaDepartment of Radiology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
A MoritaDepartment of Geriatric and Environmental Dermatology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan.
T KimuraJanssen Pharmaceutical K.K, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2903-4920
H MorishimaJanssen Pharmaceutical K.K, Tokyo, Japan.
R GotoJanssen Pharmaceutical K.K, Tokyo, Japan.
R ZhengJanssen Pharmaceutical K.K, Tokyo, Japan.
T TeruiDepartment of Dermatology, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Fukushima Medical University · JPJikei University School of Medicine · JPNagoya City University · JPNihon University · JP

Funding

Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Tokyo, Japan
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies of guselkumab have demonstrated clinical benefits in patients with plaque-type psoriasis, generalized pustular psoriasis, erythrodermic psoriasis and palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP).

objectiveThe aim of this exploratory analysis of a double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study in Japanese patients with PPP was to evaluate the efficacy of guselkumab in the subset of patients with pustulotic arthro-osteitis (PAO).

methodsPatients were randomized to receive guselkumab 100 or 200 mg at weeks 0, 4, 12 and every 8 weeks, or placebo with cross-over to guselkumab 100 or 200 mg at week 16 (placebo group). Efficacy endpoints were changes from baseline in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) score, EuroQOL-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) index score, EQ-5D pain/discomfort dimension score and C-reactive protein (CRP, mg/L) level in all PAO patients through week 52. Data from both guselkumab groups were combined and presented as results for a single overall guselkumab group.

resultsAmong 159 patients with PPP, 66 with PAO were randomized across treatment groups. For patients with MRI data for all regions assessed, the proportion of patients in the guselkumab group with PAO characterized as severe decreased from 23.8% (10/42) at baseline to 5.4% (2/42) at week 52. The mean (SD) change from baseline at week 52 in EQ-5D index score was 0.20 (0.17) among PPP patients with PAO and 0.15 (0.17) among those without PAO in the guselkumab group. Among all PAO patients, the proportions with an EQ-5D pain/discomfort dimension score of no or slight pain/discomfort in the guselkumab group increased from baseline to week 52 [33.3% (7/21) vs. 87.5% (35/40)]. The mean (SD) CRP levels decreased in all PAO patients in the guselkumab group at week 52 compared to baseline [-1.71 (8.16) mg/L].

conclusionGuselkumab treatment showed beneficial outcomes for PAO signs and symptoms in Japanese patients with PPP.

Indexed as

OsteitisPsoriasisAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedDouble-Blind MethodHumansJapanSeverity of Illness IndexAntibodies, Monoclonal, Humanizedguselkumab

Identifiers

PMID32173916
PMCPMC7586986
OpenAlexW3012138498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.