MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4387733184 · doi:10.14309/01.ajg.0000954208.38872.e1

S1142 Impact of Guselkumab Therapy on Histologic and Combined Histologic and Endoscopic Outcomes in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: Week 12 Results From the Phase 3 QUASAR Induction Study

2023· article· en· W4387733184 sur OpenAlexaff
Julián Panés, Bruce E. Sands, Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, Shadi Yarandi, Kuan‐Hsiang Gary Huang, Matthew Germinaro, Sunandini Sridhar, Patrick Branigan, Miao Ye, Hongyan Zhang, Xavier Hébuterne, T Gyökeres, Fumihito Hirai, Tadakazu Hisamatsu, David T. Rubin, Brian G. Feagan

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueInflammatory Bowel Disease
Établissements canadiensWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineGastroenterologyInternal medicineHistologyHistopathologyRandomizationSurgeryRandomized controlled trialPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: The Phase 3 QUASAR induction study evaluated efficacy and safety of guselkumab (GUS), an IL-23p19 subunit antagonist, in patients (pts) with moderately to severely active UC. Here we present results for effects of GUS induction on histologic and combined histologic and endoscopic outcomes at Week (Wk) 12. Methods: Pts with modified Mayo score of 5-9 and a centrally reviewed Mayo endoscopy subscore (MES)≥2 at induction baseline (BL) were randomized 3:2 to receive either GUS 200mg IV or placebo (PBO) IV at Wks0, 4, and 8. Colonic biopsies collected during endoscopy at BL and Wk12 were used to evaluate treatment effect on histology using three methods: Geboes score (GS), Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI), and Nancy Histological Index (NHI). Histologic improvement (GS≤3.1), histologic remission (GS≤2 B.0), combined histologic improvement and endoscopic improvement (GS≤3.1 and MES of 0 or 1 with no friability; histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement; HEMI), and combined histologic remission and endoscopic normalization (GS≤2 B.0 and MES of 0) were evaluated at Wk12. HEMI at Wk12 was a major secondary endpoint. All other analyses were not multiplicity controlled (nominal P-values). Results: A total of 701 pts were assessed (mean UC disease duration, 7.52yrs; mean modified Mayo score, 6.9; MES of 3, 67.9%). BL demographics and disease characteristics were similar across treatment groups. Histologic activity at BL was similar across the GUS and PBO cohorts: mean total GS (11.8 vs 11.9, respectively), mean RHI (16.6 vs 16.6), and mean NHI (2.7 vs 2.8). The proportion of GUS- and PBO-treated pts with histologic improvement at Wk12 was 44.9% and 21.4%, respectively (adjusted Δ: 23.7%; P< 0.001; Table 1). Histologic remission at Wk12 was achieved by 39.9% and 18.6% of GUS- and PBO-treated pts, respectively (adjusted Δ: 21.5%; P< 0.001). Identical results were seen across 2 additional definitions of histologic remission (ie, RHI and NHI). The proportion of GUS-treated pts achieving HEMI at Wk12 was significantly greater than PBO-treated pts (23.5% vs 7.5%, respectively; adjusted Δ: 16.2%; P< 0.001). The proportion of GUS- and PBO-treated pts with histologic remission and endoscopic normalization at Wk12 was 13.5% and 3.9%, respectively (adjusted Δ: 9.8%; P< 0.001). Conclusion: Pts with moderately to severely active UC treated with GUS 200mg IV induction experienced clinically meaningful improvements in histologic and combined histologic and endoscopic outcomes at Wk12. Table 1. - Summary of Histologic and Combined Histologic and Endoscopic Outcomes at Week 12 Placebo IV Guselkumab200 mg IV Adjusted treatment difference (95% CI) P-value Full analysis set, N 280 421 - Histologic improvement, n (%)(Neutrophil infiltration in < 5% of crypts, no crypt destruction, and no erosions, ulcerations or granulation tissue according to the Geboes grading system [ie, Geboes histologic score ≤3.1]) 60 (21.4) 189 (44.9) 23.7 (17.0, 30.3)*** Histologic remission, n (%)(Absence of neutrophils from the mucosa [both lamina propria and epithelium], no crypt destruction, and no erosions, ulcerations or granulation tissue according to the Geboes grading system [ie, Geboes histologic score ≤2 B.0])a 52 (18.6) 168 (39.9) 21.5 (15.1, 27.9)*** Histologic remission by alternative definition, n (%)(Nancy Histological Index ≤ 1) 52 (18.6) 168 (39.9) 21.5 (15.1, 27.9)*** Histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement, n (%)(Achieving a combination of histologic improvement [ie, Geboes histologic score ≤3.1] and endoscopic improvement [Mayo endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability]) 21 (7.5) 99 (23.5) 16.2 (11.1, 21.2) P< 0.001 Histologic remission and endoscopic normalization, n (%)(Absence of neutrophils from the mucosa [both lamina propria and epithelium], no crypt destruction, and no erosions, ulcerations or granulation tissue according to the Geboes grading system [ie, Geboes histologic score ≤2 B.0] and Mayo endoscopy subscore of 0) 11 (3.9) 57 (13.5) 9.8 (5.8, 13.7)*** ***Nominal P< 0.001.aThis definition is equivalent to histologic remission by alternative definition using the Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI ≤ 3, with subscores of 0 for lamina propria neutrophils and neutrophils in the epithelium and without ulcers or erosion).Note: Patients who had a prohibited change in UC medication, an ostomy or colectomy, or discontinued study agent due to lack of therapeutic effect or due to an AE of worsening of UC, or due to other reasons except for COVID-19 related reasons (excluding COVID-19 infection) or regional crisis in Russia and Ukraine prior to Week 12 were considered not to have achieved the endpoint. Patients who had an unevaluable biopsy (i.e., a biopsy that was collected, but could not be assessed due to sample preparation or technical errors) or were missing the endoscopy subscore (if applicable) or any of the histology components pertaining to this endpoint (i.e., assessment of neutrophils in epithelium, crypt destruction, or erosions or ulcerations or granulations) at Week 12 were considered not to have achieved the endpoint. The adjusted treatment difference and confidence intervals were based on the Wald statistic with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight. The P-values were based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test, stratified by ADT-Failure status (Yes/No) and concomitant use of corticosteroids at baseline (Yes/No).

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)0,001
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 non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,013

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

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

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 Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,279
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · 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 non 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

Citations1
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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