EFFECT OF CENERIMOD ON QUALITY OF LIFE IN SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS PATIENTS: RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 2 CARE STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PV170 / #460 Poster Topic: AS19 - Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Background/Purpose Cenerimod is an investigational highly selective S1P 1 receptor modulator with potential therapeutic benefits in autoimmune disease, including Systemic Lupus Erythematous (SLE). The Phase 2b CARE study was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of different doses of cenerimod (0.5 mg, 1 mg, 2 mg, or 4 mg) in subjects with moderate-to-severe SLE, concurrently receiving stable background therapy. Cenerimod had a significant effect on the primary endpoint, the change in modified SLE disease activity index-2000 score (mSLEDAI 2K, which excludes leukopenia) from baseline to month 6. The largest difference vs placebo was obtained in the 4 mg arm and was nominally statistically significant (4 mg: -4.04 vs placebo: -2.85, P=0.029). Further, post hoc subgroup analyses showed that 4 mg had a greater treatment effect size vs placebo (- 5.41 vs -2.62, P=0.0015) in patients with high IFN 1 gene expression at baseline. The CARE study also assessed health-related quality of life (QoL) as 1 of its endpoints, and the abstract presents the QoL results comparing cenerimod 4 mg to placebo. Methods The 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) was one of the tools used to assess quality of life (QoL) in the CARE study.[1] The data was collected using a paper clinical report form (CRF). Observed changes from baseline to month 6 were analyzed descriptively using the full analysis set. The SF-36v2 questionnaire covers 8 health domains and provides 2 component summaries, the physical and the mental components. A 2-point change in the physical component summary and a 3-point change in the mental component summary are considered as the minimal important differences (MIDs) indicating improvement in health status 1 . In this abstract, the results will focus on the 2 component summaries and on the mental health domain. Results Improvements were noted with cenerimod 4 mg vs placebo at month 6 across most of the SF-36v2 health domains. The mean [SD] change from baseline to month 6 with 4 mg was 4.72 [8.17] for the physical component summary (vs placebo, 2.60 [9.91]) (Table 1) and 2.73 [8.99] for the mental component summary (vs placebo, 2.51 [11.74]) (Table 2). In the subgroup of patients with high IFN-1 gene expression, the treatment effect was greater with a mean [SD] changes higher for 4 mg vs placebo in both physical (6.77 [7.80] vs 0.99 [9.81]) (Table 1) and mental components (3.14 [10.25] vs 0.75 [13.39]) (Table 2). For the SF-36 mental health domain at month 6, the mean [SD] difference was 3.02 with 4 mg vs 2.63 for placebo. In the high IFN-1 gene expression subgroup, the mean difference was 2.82 [9.76] for the 4 mg vs -0.07 [12.10] for the placebo. Table 1: SF-36v2: observed value at baseline and change from baseline at Month 6: Physical Component Table 2: SF-36v2: observad value at baseline and change from baseline at Month 6: Mental Component Conclusions Patients with cenerimod 4 mg groups showed meaning full improvements in the mental and physical components of the SF-36v2 scores compared to placebo at month 6. Further evaluation of the SF-36v2 scores will be performed in the phase III program. References: [1.] User’s manual for the SF-36v2 survey. 3rd ed. 2011.
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 | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».