S1445 Efficacy of Guselkumab vs Placebo in Crohn’s Disease Based on Prior Response/Exposure to Biologic Therapy: Results of the GALAXI 2 and 3 Phase 3 Studies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: GALAXI 2 & 3 are identically designed 48-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo (PBO)- and active-comparator, treat-through registrational trials assessing the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) induction and subcutaneous (SC) maintenance therapy with guselkumab (GUS), a dual-acting IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor, in participants (pts) with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD). Primary results of each study were previously reported; here we explore the impact of biologic therapy exposure on efficacy outcomes with GUS compared to PBO in the pooled GALAXI 2 & 3 dataset. Methods: Patients with inadequate response or intolerance to conventional therapy or biologic therapy (BIO-ir), active CD (CDAI 220–450 + mean daily SF >3 or AP >1), and SES-CD≥6 (≥4 for isolated ileal disease) were randomly assigned 2:2:2:1 at week (Wk) 0 to GUS 200mg IV every 4 weeks (x3)→100mg SC every 8 weeks, GUS 200mg IV every 4 weeks (x3)→200mg SC every 4 weeks, UST IV→SC, or PBO. In each trial, the composite co-primary endpoints were 1) clinical response at Wk12 and clinical remission at Wk48, and 2) clinical response at Wk12 and endoscopic response at Wk48, comparing each GUS regimen to PBO. Major secondary endpoints included clinical remission at Wk12 and endoscopic response at Wk12. Analyses of BIO-ir and BIO-naïve subgroups in the individual trials were prespecified; pooled analyses were performed post hoc. Results: In the pooled dataset, 52% (378/730) of pts randomized to PBO or GUS had a prior history of BIO-ir and 42% (305/730) were BIO-naïve (6% [47/730] had prior exposure to biologics but no documented failure). At Wk12, GUS achieved higher rates of clinical remission and endoscopic response compared to PBO in the overall population and BIO-ir and BIO-naïve subgroups (Table 1). For the composite co-primary endpoints, both GUS regimens also achieved higher rates of 1) clinical response at Wk12 and clinical remission at Wk48 and 2) clinical response at Wk12 and endoscopic response at Wk48 compared to PBO in the overall population and BIO-ir and BIO-naïve subgroups (Figure 1). Conclusion: In pooled analyses of the double-blind GALAXI 2 & 3 trials, GUS was efficacious versus PBO in pts with CD regardless of prior biologic therapy exposure in both short-term (Wk12) endpoints and long-term (Wk12 and Wk48) composite endpoints.Figure 1.: Efficacy of guselkumab (GUS) and placebo (PBO) for long-term (Wk 12 and Wk 48) clinical and endoscopic endpoints in all participants and BIO-ir and BIO-naïve subgroups in the pooled GALAXI 2 & 3 dataset. Table 1. - Efficacy of guselkumab (GUS) and placebo (PBO) for short-term clinical and endoscopic endpoints in all participants and BIO-ir and BIO-naïve subgroups in the pooled GALAXI 2 & 3 dataset Overall population Participants with a history of inadequate response or intolerance to at least 1 prior biologica (BIO-ir) Participants with no history of exposure to biologicsa (BIO-naïve) PBON=148 GUS 200mg IV combinedb N=582 PBON=78 GUS 200mg IV combinedb N=300 PBON=61 GUS 200mg IV combinedb N=244 Clinical remission at Wk12 28 (18.9%) 274 (47.1%) ∆ 28.0% P < .001* 15 (19.2%) 138 (46.0%) ∆ 26.9% P < .001* 10 (16.4%) 121 (49.6%) ∆ 32.1% P < .001* Endoscopic response at Wk12 18 (12.2%) 274 (47.1%) ∆ 28.0% P < .001* 5 (6.4%) 87 (29.0%) ∆ 22.6% P < .001* 11 (18.0%) 113 (46.3%) ∆ 27.7% P < .001* Data are presented as n (%); ∆% (adjusted treatment difference) vs PBO; P-value vs PBO.Adjusted treatment differences and P-values were based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator. The stratification variables used are baseline CDAI score (≤300 or >300), baseline SES-CD score (≤12 or >12), BIO-ir status (Yes or No; this variable used only in analyses of the overall population), and baseline corticosteroid use (Yes or No). Population N values reflect the primary analysis set, defined as all randomized participants who received at least 1 (partial or complete) dose of study intervention and had a screening SES-CD score ≥6 (or ≥4 for participants with isolated ileal disease). PBO pts not in clinical response at week (Wk) 12 switched to UST.Endpoint definitions: clinical remission, CDAI < 150; endoscopic response, ≥50% improvement from baseline in SES-CD or SES-CD ≤ 2. Participants with treatment failure or missing data were considered to not have met the endpoint.a. Anti-TNF agents or vedolizumab.b. Participants assigned to either GUS 200mg IV every 4 weeks (every 4 weeks) (x3)→100mg SC every 8 weeks or GUS 200mg IV every 4 weeks (x3)→200mg SC every 4 weeks. At the Wk 12 assessment, GUS participants had only received GUS IV.*Nominal P-value.
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 | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 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 ».