MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4316081733 · doi:10.14309/01.ajg.0000859700.09368.7e

S765 Association of Ulcerative Colitis Bowel Urgency Improvement with Clinical Response and Remission

2022· article· en· W4316081733 sur OpenAlexaff
David B. Clemow, Christophe Sapin, Toshifumi Hibi∥, Marla C. Dubinsky, Séverine Vermeire, Stefan Schreiber, Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, Mamoru Watanabe, Remo Panaccione

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueInflammatory Bowel Disease
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineUlcerative colitisInternal medicineClinical endpointClinical trialGastroenterologyPlaceboRandomized controlled trialMaintenance therapySpontaneous remissionSurgeryChemotherapyDiseasePathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Early bowel movement urgency (BU) improvement association with later clinical endpoint improvements was examined in moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) patients (pts) treated with mirikizumab (miri). Methods: BU was evaluated in Phase 3 randomized placebo (PBO)-controlled 12-week induction (LUCENT-1, NCT03518086) and 40-week maintenance (LUCENT-2, NCT03524092) trials with miri. Pts received IV miri 300mg or PBO during induction. Week (W)12 miri responders were rerandomized at LUCENT-2 baseline (BL) to subcutaneous miri 200mg or PBO. BU was measured with 11-point Urgency Numeric Rating Scale (UNRS) from 0 (no urgency) to 10 (worst possible). Pts’ UNRS scores were an average from 7 consecutive days prior to visit. Association of pts with BU Clinically Meaningful Improvement (CMI) or BU remission between BL and W4 with the proportion of pts achieving clinical response, and clinical, endoscopic, or symptomatic remission at end of W12 was assessed. For pts who achieved clinical response at W12, the analyses were repeated for the end of maintenance based on W12 BU status. Logistic regression models with treatment, urgency (BU CMI or BU Remission), treatment-by-urgency group interaction, and stratification factors were fitted to examine the association between early urgency improvement and later clinical endpoints. Results: Treatment-by-urgency group interactions were not statistically significant across clinical outcomes for induction and maintenance. For induction, treatment and urgency status were statistically significant. Pts experiencing BU CMI or BU remission at W4 were consistently more likely to achieve clinical response, and clinical, endoscopic, or symptomatic remission at W12 for both treatment groups. For remission, only treatment main effect was statistically significant. Among miri induction clinical responders (an enriched population), BU CMI or BU Remission at end of induction (W12) was not associated with later maintenance efficacy outcomes (W52). Miri-treated pts achieved higher rates of clinical response, and clinical, endoscopic, or symptomatic remission at W52 than with PBO regardless of BU CMI or BU Remission at W12 (Table). Conclusion: Early BU Improvement, CMI or Remission, was associated with better clinical outcomes during induction for miri and PBO pts, showing BU is a sensitive predictor of early clinical outcomes. Among miri induction responders, miri consistently provided better maintenance of response and remission rates than PBO. Table 1. - Bowel urgency associations with Clinical Response and Clinical Remission for patients with moderate-to-severely active ulcerative colitis LUCENT-1 Induction Urgency CMI Urgency Remission Endpoint PBO IV (N=276) Miri 300mg IV (N=811) p-value a Endpoint PBO (N=276) Miri 300mg IV (N=811) p-value a Urgency CMI W4 = Yes Clin. Response W12, (%) Clin. Remission W12, (%) Endo. Remission W12, (%) Sympt. Remission W12, (%) n=6168.927.936.149.2 n=23078.737.449.163.5 0.1260.1790.0830.055 Urgency remission W4 = Yes Clin. Response W12, (%) Clin. Remission W12, (%) Endo. Remission W12, (%) Sympt. Remission W12, (%) n=1376.946.246.269.2 n=6581.547.752.370.8 NA b NA b NA b NA b Urgency CMI W4 = No Clin. Response W12, (%) Clin. Remission W12, (%) Endo. Remission W12, (%) Sympt. Remission W12, (%) n=21534.98.816.721.4 n=58157.518.429.638.7 < 0.001< 0.001< 0.001< 0.001 Urgency remission W4 = No Clin. Response W12, (%) Clin. Remission W12, (%) Endo. Remission W12, (%) Sympt. Remission W12, (%) n=26340.711.419.825.5 n=74661.921.733.643.6 < 0.001< 0.001< 0.001< 0.001 LUCENT-2 Maintenance Urgency CMI Urgency Remission Endpoint PBO SC (N=172) Miri 200mg SC (N=336) p-value a Endpoint PBO SC (N=172) Miri 200mg SC (N=336) p-value a Urgency CMI W12 = Yes Clin. Response W52 (%) Clin. Remission W52 (%) Endo. Remission W52 (%) Sympt. Remission W52 (%) n=11252.729.531.343.8 n=21282.553.360.474.1 < 0.001< 0.001< 0.001< 0.001 Urgency remission W12 = Yes Clin. Response W52 (%) Clin. Remission W52 (%) Endo. Remission W52 (%) Sympt. Remission W52 (%) n=5347.234.035.845.3 n=10582.955.261.079.0 < 0.0010.0120.004< 0.001 Urgency CMI W12 = No Clin. Response W52 (%) Clin. Remission W52 (%) Endo. Remission W52 (%) Sympt. Remission W52 (%) n=6045.018.326.735.0 n=12479.047.657.369.4 < 0.001< 0.001< 0.001< 0.001 Urgency remission W12 = No Clin. Response W52 (%) Clin. Remission W52 (%) Endo. Remission W52 (%) Sympt. Remission W52 (%) n=11951.321.826.938.7 n=23180.549.458.469.3 < 0.001< 0.001< 0.001< 0.001 ap-value = within-group treatment comparison from Fisher’s exact tests.bSubgroup N was too small for p-value generation.Urgency CMI: UNRS=≥3 point decrease; Urgency remission: UNRS=0 or 1.Note: Using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, treatment-by-subgroup interactions were not statistically significant.Note: W52 refers to W40 of LUCENT-2, representing 52 weeks of continuous treatment; W12 refers to baseline for LUCENT-2. Abbreviations: CMI=clinically meaningful improvement; PBO=placebo; miri=mirikizumab; IV=intravenous; n=number of patients in the specified category; SC=subcutaneous; W=week.

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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
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: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,012
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,039

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0120,001

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 Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,256
Écart entre enseignants0,251 · 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

Citations1
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Même sujetInflammatory Bowel Disease→Travaux en français237 207→