MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4316086087 · doi:10.14309/01.ajg.0000859748.93170.b0

S777 Benefit–Risk Assessment of Upadacitinib Treatment in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis

2022· article· en· W4316086087 sur OpenAlexaff
Remo Panaccione, Irina Blumenstein, Peter M. Irving, Ramona Vladea, Dapo Ilo, Wen Zhou, Gweneth Levy, Xuan Yao, Iris Dotan

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-clésMedicineAdverse effectClinical endpointUlcerative colitisInternal medicinePlaceboConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialClinical trialGastroenterologyDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib(UPA) as induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis have been demonstrated in a Phase 3 clinical trial program.1–3 Methods: Patients with clinical response(per Adapted Mayo score) after 8 weeks (wks) of UPA 45mg once daily(QD) induction treatment in U-ACHIEVE Induction(NCT02819635) or U-ACCOMPLISH(NCT03653026) were re-randomized to U-ACHIEVE Maintenance(NTC02819635) receiving UPA 15mg QD, UPA 30mg QD, or placebo(PBO) maintenance therapy. We present 52wk efficacy and safety benefit–risk assessment of UPA 15mg and UPA 30mg vs PBO. For efficacy outcomes, point estimates and 95% confidence intervals(CI) of PBO-adjusted treatment effect were calculated. For risk analysis, exposure-adjusted event rates(events per 100 patient-years [E/100 PY]) of selected adverse events of special interest were evaluated. Results: Overall, 681 patients were analyzed for efficacy(UPA 15mg, 225; UPA 30mg, 233; PBO, 223). For primary endpoint of clinical remission at wk 52, point estimates of PBO-adjusted treatment effect were 30.1%(95% CI: 22.7, 37.4) with UPA 15mg and 42.9%(35.4, 50.4) with UPA 30mg(p< 0.001 for both; Table). Significant differences were observed across secondary endpoints for UPA doses vs PBO(all p< 0.001; Table). Rates of serious infections were 5.9 E/100 PY with PBO vs 5.0 and 3.2 for UPA 15mg and UPA 30mg, respectively. No events of herpes zoster were reported with PBO, while rates with UPA 15mg and UPA 30mg were 6.0 and 7.3 E/100 PY, respectively. Rates of malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer were 0.7 E/100 PY with PBO vs 0.5 and 0.9 with UPA 15mg and UPA 30mg, respectively; rates of non-melanoma skin cancer were 1.4 E/100 PY with UPA 30mg, with no cases reported with UPA 15mg or PBO. Adjudicated venous thromboembolic events were low in UPA groups and no cases were reported with PBO; adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events were low with PBO and UPA 30mg, and none with UPA 15mg (Table). Conclusion: Response rates were significantly greater with UPA 15mg and UPA 30mg versus PBO across endpoints assessed. UPA doses were well tolerated. Rates of herpes zoster and creatine phosphokinase elevation, known safety signals of JAK inhibitors,4 were dose-dependent. The data suggest that UPA 15mg and UPA 30mg QD have a favorable benefit–risk profile after 52wks maintenance therapy. The safety of UPA continues to be monitored in long-term extension study. Table 1. - Primary and key secondary endpoints at Week 52 UPA 15 mg QD – PBO response rate difference, % (95% CI) a UPA 30 mg QD – PBO response rate difference, % (95% CI) a Clinical remission b 30.1 (22.7, 37.4)*** 42.9 (35.4, 50.4)*** Endoscopic improvement c 34.4 (26.7, 42.1)*** 49.0 (41.4, 56.7)*** Maintenance of clinical remission d 34.9 (21.2, 48.5)*** 46.9 (34.0, 59.8)*** Corticosteroid-free clinical remission e 33.7 (20.0, 47.3)*** 45.5 (32.6, 58.5)*** Maintenance of endoscopic improvement f 42.2 (30.4, 53.9)*** 51.5 (40.9, 62.1)*** Endoscopic remission g 18.6 (12.2, 25.0)*** 21.9 (15.4, 28.5)*** Histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement h 28.5 (21.1, 35.9)*** 43.8 (36.1, 51.5)*** Mucosal healing i 13.5 (7.8, 19.3)*** 17.2 (11.2, 23.3)*** Selected adverse events of special interest j PBO, E (E/100 PY) (N=245) UPA 15 mg QD, E (E/100 PY) (N=250) UPA 30 mg QD, E (E/100 PY) (N=251) Serious infection 8 (5.9) 10 (5.0) 7 (3.2) Herpes zoster 0 12 (6.0) 16 (7.3) CPK elevation 5 (3.7) 16 (8.0) 22 (10.1) Malignancy (excluding NMSC) 1 (0.7) 1 (0.5) 2 (0.9) NMSC 0 0 3 (1.4) Adjudicated MACE 1 (0.7) 0 1 (0.5) Adjudicated VTE 0 2 (1.0) 2 (0.9) ***p< 0.001.aThe efficacy analysis was based on the ITT population. Results are based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19. The point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference are based on Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel tests adjusted for strata (corticosteroid use at Week 0 [yes or no], clinical remission status at Week 0 [yes or no], biologic-IR status at baseline [biologic-IR or non-biologic-IR]).bStool frequency subscore ≤1 and not greater than baseline (of induction), RBS=0, and ES ≤1.cES ≤1.dAmong patients with clinical remission at the end of the induction therapy.eClinical remission at Week 52 and corticosteroid free for ≥90 days prior to Week 52 among patients with clinical remission at the end of the induction therapy.fEndoscopic improvement at Week 52 among patients with endoscopic improvement at the end of the induction therapy.gES=0.hES ≤1 and Geboes score ≤3.1.iES=0 and Geboes score < 2.jThe safety analysis included all patients who received ≥1 dose of study therapy (ITT population plus patients who received up to 44 weeks’ maintenance therapy under earlier versions of protocol amendments).CI, confidence interval; CPK, creatine phosphokinase; E, event; ES, endoscopic subscore; IR, inadequate responder; ITT, intention-to-treat; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular event; NMSC, non-melanoma skin cancer; QD, once daily; PBO, placebo; PY, patient-years; RBS, rectal bleeding subscore; UPA, upadacitinib; VTE, venous thromboembolic event.

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)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
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 enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,038

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,003
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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 Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,238
Écart entre enseignants0,233 · 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
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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