MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3159707144 · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keab247.188

P193 Clinical features of patients with active ankylosing spondylitis who did not respond to adalimumab but responded to ixekizumab: a post-hoc analysis

2021· article· en· W3159707144 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xenofon Baraliakos, Rebecca Bolce, David Sandoval Calderon, Soyi Liu Leage, Vladimir Geneus, David H. Adams, Atul Deodhar, Jessica A. Walsh, Joachim Sieper

Notice bibliographique

RevueLara D. Veeken · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIxekizumabMedicineAnkylosing spondylitisAdalimumabPlaceboPost-hoc analysisBASDAIPost hocInternal medicinePhysical therapyTumor necrosis factor alphaSecukinumabPathologyDiseaseAlternative medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Aims Biologic treatment in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are currently limited to TNF and IL-17A inhibitors (IL-17Ai). It is unknown whether there are predictors of AS patients who only respond to 1 of these mechanisms of action or respond to switching from TNF-blocker to IL-17Ai. This post-hoc analysis evaluated whether patients who did not respond to TNF inhibitor adalimumab (ADA) but did subsequently respond to IL-17Ai ixekizumab (IXE) differed from those that responded to both ADA and subsequent IXE. Methods The analysis included patients from the phase-3 COAST-V trial in bio-naive patients with active AS (BASDAI≥4 and back pain≥4 on VAS of 0-10). There were 341 patients randomized 1/1/1/1 to IXE80mg/2weeks (wks) (Q2W), IXE 80mg/4wks (Q4W), ADA 40mg Q2W (reference arm), and placebo (PBO) for the 16-week blinded-treatment period. Of these, 329 entered the dose double-blind extended treatment period (wks16 to 52). Those who received PBO or ADA were re-randomized to receive IXE 80mg Q4W or Q2W. Patients were stratified as responders or non-responders based on their Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) 40 response at wks16 and 52. Data for the 2 IXE dose groups were pooled. Results Overall, more patients responded to IXE than ADA at wk16. Based on ASAS40 response at wks16 and at wk52, 30.9% of patients responded to both initial ADA and subsequent IXE, 23.5% of patients did not respond to initial ADA but did respond to subsequent IXE, 45.9% of patients responded to IXE at both time points, and 12.3% of patients did not respond to IXE at wk16 but did so at wk52. Across the groups, patients were of similar age and predominantly males, though there were proportionally more women among those who did not respond to either ADA or IXE at wk16. However, ADA non-responders at wk16/IXE responders at wk52 had numerically lower baseline (mean[SD]) C-reactive protein (11.2 [11.2]), lower MRI Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) scores of the spine (11.6 [12.1]), and lower MRI SPARCC score of the sacroiliac joints (1.1 [2.2]) than ADA responders at wk16/IXE responders at wk52 patients (16.0 [17.1], 24.6 [32.6], and 5.5 [9.8]), respectively. Conclusion In this analysis, patients who did not respond to ADA but subsequently responded to IXE exhibited overall lower levels of inflammation, as measured by CRP and MRI of the spine or sacroiliac joints, compared with patients who responded on ADA and also after switching to IXE. Along with comparative findings in patients who continuously received IXE and responded at both wks16 and 52 or wk52 only, these data indicate that IXE is efficacious in patients with active AS irrespective of inflammation level, assessed by CRP and MRI. Alternatively, lower baseline inflammation may be a predictor of delayed response. Disclosure X. Baraliakos: Consultancies; X. Baraliakos has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma. Grants/research support; X. Baraliakos has received research grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma. R. Bolce: Shareholder/stock ownership; R. Bolce is a shareholder and employee of Eli Lilly and Company. D. Sandoval Calderon: Shareholder/stock ownership; D. Sandoval Calderon is a shareholder and employee of Eli Lilly and Company. S. Liu Leage: Shareholder/stock ownership; S.L. League is a shareholder and employee of Eli Lilly and Company. V. Geneus: Shareholder/stock ownership; V. Geneus is a shareholder and employee of Eli Lilly and Company. D. Adams: Shareholder/stock ownership; D. Adams is a shareholder and employee of Eli Lilly and Company. A. Deodhar: Consultancies; A. Deodhar has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos NV, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma. Grants/research support; A. Deodhar has received grants from AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma. J. Walsh: Consultancies; J. A. Walsh has received consultancy fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, and UCB Pharma. Grants/research support; J. A. Walsh has received grant/research support from AbbVie and Pfizer. J. Sieper: Consultancies; J. Sieper is a consultant for: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Pfizer. Other; J. Sieper has served as a speaker for: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,006
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,020

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,004
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,310
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLara D. VeekenMême sujetSpondyloarthritis Studies and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207