S1 Risankizumab Versus Ustekinumab in Patients With Moderate to Severe Crohn’s Disease: Results From the Phase 3B SEQUENCE Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Risankizumab (RZB) is a safe and effective treatment for Crohn’s disease (CD). The phase 3b SEQUENCE study directly compared the efficacy and safety of RZB, a selective IL-23 p19 inhibitor, and ustekinumab (UST), an IL-12/IL-23 p40 inhibitor. Methods: SEQUENCE was an open-label, multicenter, randomized, efficacy assessment-blinded study in patients with moderate to severe CD (CD activity index [CDAI] of 220-450, endoscopic evidence of mucosal inflammation, and average daily stool frequency ≥4 and/or average daily abdominal pain score ≥2) who previously failed ≥1 anti-TNF therapies. In Part 1 of the trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive RZB or UST for 48 weeks (wks). Randomization was stratified by number of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies failed (1/>1) and baseline steroid use (Yes/No). A mandatory steroid taper started at wk2. Primary endpoints were clinical remission (CDAI <150) at wk24 (non-inferiority of RZB vs UST in 50% of planned patients) and endoscopic remission (Simple Endoscopic Score for CD ≤4 and at least 2-point reduction vs baseline and no subscore >1 in any individual variable) at wk48 (superiority of RZB vs UST). Other clinical, endoscopic, and quality of life (QoL) outcomes, as well as adverse events (AEs), were assessed. Results: Five hundred twenty-seven patients were randomized; 520 were assessed for efficacy (RZB, N=255; UST, N=265). A higher proportion of patients completed the study with RZB (89.4%) versus UST (74.0%). Both primary endpoints of the study were met. At wk24, clinical remission rates were 58.6% (75/128) for RZB and 39.5% (54/137) for UST (Δ18.4 [95% CI, 6.6-30.3], non-inferiority met with the pre-defined margin of 10%); this endpoint was also analyzed post-hoc to test for superiority and achieved nominal P< 0.01. At wk48, endoscopic remission rates were 31.8% (81/255) for RZB and 16.2% (43/265) for UST (Δ15.6% [8.4-22.9], P< 0.0001 for superiority). RZB was superior to UST for all secondary endpoints: clinical remission at wk48 (60.8% vs 40.8%, Δ19.7% [11.3-28.1]), endoscopic response at wk48 (45.1% vs 21.9%, Δ23.3% [15.4-31.2]) and wk24 (45.2% vs 26.4%, Δ18.9% [10.9-26.9]), steroid-free (SF) endoscopic remission at wk48 (31.4% vs 15.5%, Δ15.9 [8.8-23.1]), and SF clinical remission at wk48 (60.8% vs 40.4%, Δ20.1% [11.7-28.4]) (all P< 0.0001 for superiority). Mean change from baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire total score was significantly greater with RZB versus UST at wk24 (52.4 vs 40.2, Δ12.2 [6.6-17.8]) and wk48 (56.5 vs 42.4, Δ14.1 [8.2-20.0]) (all P< 0.0001). Exposure-adjusted AE rates (Events/100 Patient Years) were comparable between RZB (341.2) and UST (282.7). Rates of serious AEs and AEs leading to study drug discontinuation were numerically lower with RZB than UST. Serious infection and hepatic event rates were similar between treatment groups with no serious hepatic events within the RZB arm. Two cases of malignancy were reported (one per treatment arm). There was one adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event with UST. There were no deaths. Conclusions: In patients with moderate to severe CD who failed anti-TNF therapy, RZB demonstrated non-inferiority to UST in achieving wk24 clinical remission, superiority in achieving wk48 endoscopic remission, and superiority in other clinical, endoscopic, and QoL outcomes. The safety profiles of RZB and UST were consistent with previously published results.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».