MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4403721970 · doi:10.14309/01.ajg.0001034956.49581.14

S1397 Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous (IV) Tulisokibart in Patients With Crohn’s Disease (CD): Results from the Open-Label Extension Period of the Phase 2 APOLLO-CD Study

2024· article· en· W4403721970 sur OpenAlexaff
Corey A. Siegel, Rupert W. Leong, Jaclyn K. Anderson, Mark Yen, Bin Dong, Bruce E. Sands, Silvio Danese, Brian G. Feagan

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueInflammatory Bowel Disease
Établissements canadiensWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineApolloCrohn's diseaseTerm (time)Period (music)Open labelDiseaseSurgeryInternal medicineAdverse effect

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Tumor necrosis factor–like cytokine 1A (TL1A) is a mediator of inflammation and fibrosis in CD. Tulisokibart, an anti-TL1A monoclonal antibody, demonstrated robust efficacy without adverse safety signals during the 12-week induction period in adults with moderately to severely active CD in the multicenter, open-label, phase 2a APOLLO-CD study. We report long-term efficacy and safety data for tulisokibart at week 50 from the APOLLO-CD open-label extension (OLE). Methods: During the 12-week induction period, participants received IV tulisokibart 100 mg on day 1 and 500 mg at weeks 2, 6, and 10. Responders to tulisokibart induction at 12-weeks (defined as a decrease from baseline in CD activity index [CDAI] of ≥100 points or CDAI < 150 at week 12) were given the opportunity to enter the OLE study; 12-week non-responders discontinued the study. At week 14, responders were randomized to receive IV tulisokibart 100 or 250 mg every 4 weeks until week 170. Efficacy outcomes through week 50 in the intention-to-treat population are reported. Safety was evaluated in all participants who received ≥1 dose of tulisokibart. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize observed data. Results: Overall, 53 of 55 participants completed the 12-week induction period; 37 were considered induction responders and were randomized to receive tulisokibart 250 mg (n=18) or 100 mg (n=19). A greater proportion of participants who were biologic-naive entered the OLE in the tulisokibart 250 vs 100 mg group (44% vs 21%). Improvements in clinical, endoscopic, and biomarker outcomes observed with tulisokibart were generally maintained through week 50 in both dose groups. At week 50, a greater proportion of participants achieved clinical and endoscopic outcomes with tulisokibart 250 mg vs 100 mg (Table 1). Normalization of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein favored the 250 vs the 100 mg dose. At week 50, AEs were reported in 83% and 84% of participants receiving tulisokibart 250 and 100 mg, respectively, and were mostly mild-to-moderate in severity. Serious AEs occurred in 1 (6%) and 2 (11%) participants receiving tulisokibart 250 and 100 mg, respectively. Conclusion: At week 50, maintenance of treatment efficacy was generally observed with tulisokibart in induction responders. A trend for higher maintenance efficacy was observed with tulisokibart 250 vs 100 mg. Tulisokibart was well tolerated with no safety signals identified through 50 weeks of treatment. Larger trials are needed to confirm these findings. Table 1. - Clinical, endoscopic and biomarker outcomes at week 12 and among 12-week induction responders at week 50 Week 12Tulisokibarta (n=55) Week 50 Tulisokibart100 mg (n=19) Week 50 Tulisokibart250 mg (n=18) Endoscopic responseb 13 (24) 3 (16) 5 (28) Clinical remissionc 27 (49) 8 (42) 10 (56) Clinical responsed 37 (67) 11 (58) 12 (67) Composite endoscopic and clinical responsee 9 (16) 3 (16) 4 (22) Composite biomarker and clinical responsef n = 4917 (35) n = 164 (25) n = 176 (35) Normalization of hsCRPg n = 365 (14) n = 90 n = 165 (31) Normalization of fecal calprotectinh n = 446 (14) n = 142 (14) n = 162 (13) All data are n (%).hsCRP, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; SES-CD, simple endoscopic score-Crohn’s disease.aAll patients treated with tulisokibart with baseline CDAI and SES-CD scores were included in the full analysis set population.bEndoscopic response was defined as a decrease in SES-CD total score ≥50% from baseline.cClinical remission was defined as CDAI score < 150.dClinical response was defined as either a decrease of ≥100 points in CDAI from baseline or CDAI score < 150.eComposite endoscopic and clinical response was defined as a decrease in SES-CD score ≥50% from baseline and either a decrease of ≥100 points in CDAI from baseline or CDAI score < 150.fComposite biomarker and clinical response was defined as a decrease in hsCRP or fecal calprotectin ≥50% from baseline and either a decrease of ≥100 points in CDAI from baseline or CDAI score < 150 (evaluated in patients with ≥1 elevated biomarker at baseline).gNormalization of hsCRP was defined as a concentration of < 5 mg/L among patients with elevated levels at baseline.hNormalization of fecal calprotectin was defined as a concentration of < 250 µg/g among patients with elevated levels at baseline.

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)0,003
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 enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,026

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,001

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 Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,261
Écart entre enseignants0,253 · 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
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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