MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3208755582 · doi:10.14309/01.ajg.0000776948.02517.78

S854 Upadacitinib Is Effective at Inducing Clinical Remission and Response in Ulcerative Colitis Patients Regardless of Baseline Corticosteroid Use: Results From Two Phase 3 Studies

2021· article· en· W3208755582 sur OpenAlexaff
David T. Rubin, Tim Raine, Tricia Finney‐Hayward, Edward V. Loftus, Laura E. Targownik, Dapo Ilo, Charles M. Phillips, Xuan Yao, Séverine Vermeire, Silvio Danese

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueInflammatory Bowel Disease
Établissements canadiensMount Sinai Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineUlcerative colitisConcomitantInternal medicinePlaceboCorticosteroidAdverse effectGastroenterologyClinical trialPhases of clinical researchRandomized controlled trialSurgeryPathologyDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Corticosteroid (CS) therapy is often used to treat ulcerative colitis (UC) relapses. It is efficient at reducing inflammation and clinical symptoms but is not effective nor is it recommended in the management of maintenance phases due to associated adverse events. The need for an effective, targeted induction therapy in the absence of CS is of key interest. Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral selective and reversible JAK inhibitor that demonstrated significantly greater efficacy as an induction therapy compared with placebo (PBO) in patients with moderately to severely active UC during two phase 3 trials (U-ACHIEVE [NCT02819635] and U-ACCOMPLISH [NCT03653026]). This subgroup analysis evaluated the impact of baseline CS use on UPA efficacy in UC patients from these trials. Methods: U-ACHIEVE and U-ACCOMPLISH were multicentre, double-blind, PBO-controlled trials that enrolled patients who have had moderately to severely UC with an Adapted Mayo Score of 5 to 9 points and a baseline endoscopy subscore of 2 to 3. Patients (n=988 in both studies) were randomized to receive UPA 45mg once daily (QD) or PBO for 8 weeks (wks). Endpoints presented here are the percentage of patients in clinical remission at wk 8, per Adapted Mayo score, and the percentage of patients with a clinical response at wk 2, per partial Adapted Mayo score (both defined in Table footnotes), respectively, in patients who were on concomitant CS at baseline, at a dose maintained to the end of induction and in those treated with UPA without concomitant CS. Results: UPA was superior to PBO, with a higher percentage of UPA-treated patients achieving clinical remission at wk 8 and clinical response at wk 2 regardless of baseline CS use. No significant differences were observed in the wk 8 clinical remission rate between UPA-treated patients receiving baseline CS (U-ACHIEVE: 24.3%; U-ACCOMPLISH: 28.8%) and those who received UPA without CS (U-ACHIEVE: 27.3%; U-ACCOMPLISH: 35.9%). Similar results were found with the clinical response rate at wk 2, with no difference between UPA-treated patients who received baseline CS (U-ACHIEVE: 58.1%; U-ACCOMPLISH: 55.1%) and those that received UPA without CS (U-ACHIEVE: 61.4%; U-ACCOMPLISH: 67.7%). Conclusion: In patients with moderately to severely active UC, UPA is superior to PBO in conferring clinical remission and response, with similar rates in patients on CS at baseline and those without CS use.Table 1.: Efficacy Endpoints in Ulcerative Colitis Patients Based on Baseline Corticosteroid Use. Adapted Mayo score = stool frequency subscore + rectal bleeding subscore (RBS) + endoscopic subscore. week, wk Clinical remission per adapted Mayo score: defined as Adapted Mayo score ≤ 2, stool frequency subscore [SFS] ≤ 1 and not greater than baseline, RBS of 0, and endoscopic subscore ≤ 1. Clinical response per partial adapted Mayo score: decrease in partial adapted Mayo score ≥ 1 point and ≥ 30% from Baseline, PLUS a decrease in RBS ≥ 1 or an absolute RBS ≤ 1. Non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation was used to handle missing data due to COVID-19. Subjects were considered "non-responder" for binary endpoints at and after the UC-related corticosteroids censoring time point through the end of the Induction Study. † Dosing for main corticosteroids were as follows: prednisone. 10-40 mg QD, budesonide, 9 mg QD; or beclomethasone, 5 mg QD. § 95% CI for response rate is the synthetic result based on Student's t-distribution from PROC MIANALYZE procedure if there were missing data due to COVID-19 or is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution if there are no missing data due to COVID-19. ‡ 95% CI for response rate difference was calculated based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution. The calculations are based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation if there were no missing data due to COVID-19. Number of patients missing at week 8 due to COVID-19 in the U-ACHIEVE trial: 1, 2 (PBO, UPA; with corticosteroid use). Number of patients missing at week 8 due to COVID-19 in the U-ACHIEVE trial: 0, 4 (PBO, UPA; without corticosteroid use). Number of patients missing at week 8 due to COVID-19 in the U-ACCOMPLISH trial: 0, 0 (PBO, UPA; with corticosteroid use). Number of patients missing at week 8 due to COVID-19 in the U-ACCOMPLISH trial: 3, 1 (PBO, UPA; without corticosteroid use). At week 2, 1 patient is missing due to COVID-19 in U-ACHIEVE trial (UPA; without corticosteroid use).

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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,020

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,004
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

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 Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,341
Écart entre enseignants0,319 · 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'étudeEssai randomisé
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 revueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Même sujetInflammatory Bowel Disease→Travaux en français237 207→