MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4403726417 · doi:10.14309/01.ajg.0001033596.88748.df

S1057 Efficacy and Safety of Guselkumab Maintenance Therapy Among Guselkumab Induction Week 24 Clinical Responders: Results From the Phase 3 QUASAR Maintenance Study

2024· article· en· W4403726417 sur OpenAlexaff
David T. Rubin, Axel Dignaß, Jessica R. Allegretti, Shadi Yarandi, Kuan‐Hsiang Gary Huang, Matthew Germinaro, Jia Zhan, Hongyan Zhang, Yaser Rayyan, Masayuki Saruta, Domingo Balderramo, Brian Bressler, Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, Tadakazu Hisamatsu

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePhase (matter)Maintenance therapyOncologyInternal medicineChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: The QUASAR program (NCT04033445) evaluated guselkumab (GUS), a dual-acting interleukin-23p19 subunit inhibitor, in patients (pts) with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Induction Week 12 (Week I-12) nonresponders to intravenous (IV) GUS received subcutaneous (SC) GUS through Week I-24.1 Week I-24 responders were eligible for maintenance therapy. Here, we present the efficacy and safety of maintenance SC GUS among GUS Week I-24 responders. Methods: Pts who were not in clinical response (definition in Table 1) at Week I-12 after IV GUS 200 mg or 400 mg received SC GUS 200 mg at Weeks I-12, I-16, and I-20. Those who were in clinical response at Week I-24 received SC GUS 200 mg every 4 weeks during the maintenance study in a blinded fashion and were evaluated as part of the nonrandomized study population. Clinical, symptomatic, endoscopic, histologic, and patient-reported outcome measures at maintenance Week 44 (Week M-44) and safety throughout the maintenance study are reported for GUS Week I-24 responders. Results: Overall, 123 of 203 (60.6%) Week I-12 nonresponders to IV GUS achieved clinical response at Week I-24 and entered the maintenance study phase. Induction baseline characteristics of GUS Week I-24 responders were: 74.8% had severe disease (modified Mayo score 7-9), 77.2% had a Mayo endoscopy subscore of 3, median CRP was 5.0 mg/L (upper limit of normal, 3 mg/L), and 59.3% had a history of documented inadequate response or intolerance to biologic, or JAK inhibitor therapy for UC. At Week M-44, 67.5% of the pts maintained clinical response and 30.1% were in clinical remission. Additional efficacy outcomes are shown in Table 1. The proportion of GUS Week I-24 responders in symptomatic remission (defined as a stool frequency subscore of 0 or 1 and not increased from induction baseline, and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0) at maintenance baseline (58.5%) was sustained through Week M-44 (56.9%) (Figure 1). Adverse events (AEs) were reported for 78.0% of GUS Week I-24 responders, serious AEs for 5.7%, and serious infections for 1.6%. No opportunistic infections or deaths occurred. No new safety concerns were identified. Conclusion: In this refractory population of GUS Week I-24 responders, maintenance treatment with GUS provided clinical benefit across a range of clinically relevant efficacy endpoints. Safety results were consistent with the overall population and safety profile of GUS in its approved indications.Figure 1.: Symptomatic Remission (a) Through Maintenance Week 44 for GUS Induction Week 24 Clinical Responders. CI-confidence interval; GUS=guselkumab; every 4 weeks=every 4 weeks. a Symptomatic remission was defined as a stool frequency subscore of 0 or 1 and not increased from induction baseline, and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0. Table 1. - Efficacy Outcomes at Maintenance Week 44 for guselkumab Induction Week 12 Nonresponders Who Achieved Clinical Response (a) at Induction Week 24 GUS 200 mg SC every 4 weeksN=123 n (%) Clinical remissionb 37 (30.1) Endoscopic improvementc 44 (35.8) Corticosteroid-free clinical remissiond 37 (30.1) Maintenance of clinical responsee 83 (67.5) Histologic-endoscopic muscosal improvementf 34 (27.6) IBDQ remissiong 67 (54.5) Fatigue responseh 49 (39.8) Maintenance of clinical remissioni, N=20 10 (50.0) Endoscopic remissionj 21 (17.1) GUS=guselkumab; IBDQ=Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire; PROMIS=Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; pts=patients; every 4 weeks=every 4 weeks; SC=subcutaneous; Week M-44=maintenance Week 44.Note: Includes only pts with modified Mayo score 5-9 at induction baseline.aClinical response was defined as a decrease from induction baseline in the modified Mayo score by ≥30% and ≥2 points, with either a ≥1-point decrease from induction baseline in the rectal bleeding subscore or a rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1.bClinical remission was defined as a Mayo stool frequency subscore of 0 or 1 and not increased from induction baseline, a Mayo rectal bleeding subscore of 0, and a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on the endoscopy.cEndoscopic improvement was defined as a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on the endoscopy.dCorticosteroid-free clinical remission was defined as clinical remission at Week M-44 without any use of corticosteroids for ≥8 weeks prior to Week M-44.eMaintenance of clinical response was defined as clinical response at Week M-44 among pts in clinical response at maintenance baseline.fHistologic-endoscopic muscosal improvement was defined as achieving a combination of histologic improvement (defined as neutrophil infiltration in < 5% of crypts, no crypt destruction, and no erosions, ulcerations or granulation tissue according to the Geboes grading system [i.e., Geboes score ≤3.1]) and endoscopic improvement.gIBDQ remission was defined as a total IBDQ score ≥170.hFatigue response was defined as a ≥7-point improvement from induction baseline in the PROMIS Fatigue Short Form 7a.iMaintenance of clinical remission was defined as clinical remission at Week M-44 among pts in clinical remission at maintenance baseline.jEndoscopic remission (normalization) was defined as a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0.

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
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 enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,012

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

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 Opus0,044
Tête enseignante GPT0,345
Écart entre enseignants0,301 · 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

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Même sujetLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment→Travaux en français237 207→