S1447 Histologic and Combined Histologic and Endoscopic Outcomes After Guselkumab Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: Week 44 Results From the Phase 3 QUASAR Maintenance Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The phase 3 QUASAR maintenance study (NCT04033445) evaluated the efficacy and safety of guselkumab (GUS), a dual-acting IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor that potently neutralizes IL-23, in patients (pts) who achieved clinical response to 12 weeks of intravenous (IV) GUS. Here we present results for effects of GUS maintenance on histologic and combined histologic and endoscopic outcomes at Week (Wk) 44. Methods: At maintenance baseline (BL), clinical responders following 12 weeks of GUS IV induction from the QUASAR Phase 2b and 3 induction studies were randomized 1:1:1 to GUS 200 mg subcutaneous (SC) every 4 weeks, GUS 100 mg SC every 8 weeks, or GUS withdrawal (PBO SC). Colonic biopsies were collected during endoscopy at maintenance BL and Wk 44 to evaluate treatment effect on histology measured using Geboes, Robarts, and Nancy Histological Index. Histologic improvement, histologic remission, the combination of histologic improvement and endoscopic improvement (histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement; HEMI), the combination of histologic remission and endoscopic improvement, and the combination of histologic remission and endoscopic remission (histo-endoscopic mucosal remission) were evaluated at Wk 44 (see Table 1 for definitions). Results: Of the 568 pts randomized (at induction BL: mean age, 40.7yrs; mean UC disease duration, 7.8yrs; mean modified Mayo score, 6.9 [63.9% with severe disease]; Mayo endoscopy subscore of 3, 66.4%), 190 were receiving GUS 200 mg every 4 weeks, 188 GUS 100 mg every 8 weeks, and 190 PBO. BL characteristics were similar across treatment groups. Histologic activity at maintenance BL was similar for the GUS 200 mg every 4 weeks, GUS 100 mg every 8 weeks, and PBO treatment groups (mean continuous Geboes total score: 6.7, 6.8, and 6.9, respectively). Improvements in histologic activity at Wk 44 were observed in pts treated with GUS 200 mg every 4 weeks and GUS 100 mg every 8 weeks, while pts assigned to PBO worsened. At Wk 44, greater proportions of pts treated with GUS 200 mg every 4 weeks and GUS 100 mg every 8 weeks achieved the assessed endpoints compared to PBO (Table 1). Across biologic/JAK inhibitor therapy history subpopulations, greater proportions of GUS-treated pts achieved the assessed endpoints compared to PBO. Conclusion: In this phase 3 maintenance study, pts with UC treated with GUS 200 mg SC every 4 weeks or GUS 100 mg SC every 8 weeks experienced clinically meaningful improvements in histologic and combined histologic and endoscopic outcomes at Wk 44 compared to PBO-treated pts. Table 1. - Summary of Histologic and Combined Histologic and Endoscopic Outcomes at Week 44 GUS Withdrawal (Placebo) GUS 100 mg SC every 8 weeks GUS 200 mg SC every 4 weeks Primary analysis population, N 190 188 190 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]) 58 (30.5) 122 (64.9) 122 (64.2) Adjusted treatment difference (95% CI)Nominal P-value - 33.6 (24.3, 42.9) P < 0.001 32.6 (23.3, 41.9) P < 0.001 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 51 (26.8) 111 (59.0) 115 (60.5) Adjusted treatment difference (95% CI)Nominal P-value - 31.2 (21.9, 40.5) P < 0.001 32.6 (23.5, 41.8) P < 0.001 Histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement (HEMI), n (%)(Achieving a combination of histologic improvement and endoscopic improvement [Mayo endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability]) 32 (16.8) 82 (43.6) 91 (47.9) Adjusted treatment difference (95% CI)Multiplicity-controlled P-value - 25.7 (17.1, 34.3) P < 0.001 29.6 (21.1, 38.0) P < 0.001 Histologic remission and endoscopic improvement, n (%)(Geboes histologic score ≤2 B.0 and endoscopic improvement) 30 (15.8) 78 (41.5) 89 (46.8) Adjusted treatment difference (95% CI)Nominal P-value - 24.7 (16.2, 33.2) P < 0.001 29.6 (21.3, 38.0) P < 0.001 Histo-endoscopic mucosal remission, n (%)(Geboes histologic score ≤2 B.0 and Mayo endoscopy subscore of 0) 27 (14.2) 59 (31.4) 62 (32.6) Adjusted treatment difference (95% CI)Nominal P-value - 16.2 (8.2, 24.3) P < 0.001 16.9 (9.2, 24.7) P < 0.001 a Results for histologic remission by alternative definitions using Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI ≤ 3, with subscores of 0 for lamina propria neutrophils and neutrophils in the epithelium and without ulcers or erosion) and Nancy Histological Index (NHI ≤ 1) were identical.Note: Patients who had a prohibited change in UC medication, an ostomy or colectomy, a dose adjustment (including sham dose adjustment), 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 44 were considered not to have achieved the endpoint. Patients who had an unevaluable biopsy (ie, 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 an endpoint at Week 44 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 (CMH) weight. The P-values were based on the CMH chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission status at maintenance baseline (Yes/No), and induction treatment (guselkumab 400 mg IV, guselkumab 200 mg IV, placebo IV crossover to guselkumab 200 mg IV).
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 | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
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 ».