S1454 Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous (IV) Tulisokibart in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis (UC): Results From the Open-Label Extension (OLE) Period of the Phase 2 ARTEMIS-UC Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Tumor necrosis factor–like cytokine 1A (TL1A) is a regulator of inflammation and fibrosis in inflammatory bowel disease. Tulisokibart, an anti-TL1A monoclonal antibody, demonstrated efficacy without clinically meaningful safety findings vs placebo after a 12-week induction in adults with moderately to severely active UC in the multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 ARTEMIS-UC study. We report long-term efficacy and safety of tulisokibart among cohort 1 induction responders at week 50 from the OLE period of ARTEMIS-UC. Methods: Cohort 1 of ARTEMIS-UC enrolled participants regardless of genetic-based diagnostic test status. After the 12-week induction period, in which randomized participants received IV tulisokibart (1000 mg on day 1; 500 mg at weeks 2, 6, 10) or placebo, participants had the option to continue in the OLE. Participants were classified as induction responders (defined as reduction of ≥2 points and ≥30% in modified Mayo score from baseline with a reduction ≥1 in rectal bleeding [RB] subscore or absolute RB subscore ≤1 at week 12) or induction nonresponders. Cohort 1 induction responders in the tulisokibart group were randomized to receive open-label IV tulisokibart 100 or 250 mg every 4 weeks at 14–170 weeks. Efficacy outcomes are reported for induction responders from the tulisokibart group. Safety is reported for induction responders from tulisokibart and placebo groups. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize observed data. Results: 47 cohort 1 induction responders in the tulisokibart group were randomized to receive tulisokibart 250 mg (n=25) or 100 mg (n=22). Improvements in clinical, endoscopic, and biomarker outcomes observed with tulisokibart were generally maintained through week 50 in both dose groups (Table 1). A greater proportion of patients achieved clinical and endoscopic outcomes with tulisokibart 250 vs 100 mg. In the safety population, (tulisokibart 250 mg, n=35; 100 mg, n=30), through week 50, AEs occurred in 63% and 77% of participants receiving tulisokibart 250 and 100 mg, respectively; most were mild to moderate in severity. Serious AEs occurred in 1 (3%) and 2 (7%) participants in the tulisokibart 250 and 100 mg groups, respectively. Conclusion: At week 50, maintenance of treatment effect was generally observed in cohort 1 induction responders. A trend for higher efficacy with tulisokibart 250 vs 100 mg was observed. Tulisokibart was well tolerated with no identified safety signals. Larger trials are needed to confirm these findings. Table 1. - Clinical, endoscopic, and biomarker outcomes at week 12 in the cohort 1 tulisokibart group and at week 50 among cohort 1 induction responders in the tulisokibart group Week 12TulisokibartInduction(n=68) Week 50Tulisokibart100 mg(n=22) Week 50Tulisokibart250 mg(n=25) Clinical remission,a % 26 32 48 Endoscopic improvement,b % 37 36 48 Clinical response,c % 66 59 68 Symptomatic remission,d % 19 23 32 Histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement,e % n = 6531 n = 1547 n = 2050 High-sensitivity C-reactive protein fold change from baseline, geometric LS mean (95% CI) n = 650.56 (0.48–0.66) n = 170.51 (0.22–1.19) n = 240.56 (0.26–1.19) Fecal calprotectin fold change from baseline, geometric LS mean (95% CI) n = 540.21 (0.16–0.27) n = 130.28 (0.09–0.88) n = 170.27 (0.10–0.77) LS least squares; mMS, 3-component modified Mayo score; SF stool frequency.aClinical remission per mMS was defined as endoscopic subscore of 0 or 1, RB subscore of 0, and SF subscore of 0 or 1 and not greater than baseline.bEndoscopic improvement was defined as endoscopy subscore ≤1 with no friability.cClinical response per mMS was defined as reduction from baseline ≥2 points and ≥30% in mMS, accompanied by a reduction ≥1 in RB subscore or absolute RB subscore ≤1.dSymptomatic remission was defined as SF subscore of 0 and RB subscore of 0.eHistologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement was defined as Geboes score ≤3.1 and endoscopy subscore ≤1.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| 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 | 0,002 |
| 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 ».